Really? Obama's opinion on Bradley Manning...

Here's the beginning of the article from FDL:

Obama on Manning: “He Broke the Law.” So Much for that Trial?

By: Michael Whitney Friday April 22, 2011 8:17 am
Tweet487


President Barack Obama made stunning accusations about accused Wikileaks whistleblower PFC Bradley Manning, directly asserting that Manning “broke the law.” Apparently the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime.

In a discussion yesterday with Logan Price, a Bradley Manning supporter who was part of a group of activists who sang a song during the President’s San Francisco fundraiser, President Obama flatly stated that Bradley Manning “dumped” documents and that “he broke the law.” A rough transcript follows, provided by UK Friends of Bradley Manning:

OBAMA: So people can have philosophical views but I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source … That’s not how the world works.

And if you’re in the military… And I have to abide by certain rules of classified information. If I were to release material I weren’t allowed to, I’d be breaking the law.



http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/04/22/obama-on-manning-he-broke-the-law-so-much-for-that-trial/

I'm so sick of this. How many sets of laws are there: well,
1) One set for the very wealthy so they can commit white collar crimes with impunity.
2) One set for the very powerful so they can kill with impunity (military, insurance companies, oil companies, diamond miners, etc)
3) One set for the rich and powerful so they can decide which of their friends gets to skate to make sure they STAY rich and powerful

and of course
4) One set of laws that covers ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES so the peons can be arrested for WHATEVER.

Seems more and more inspired by the republicans every day.

exactly. :( How many bank fraudsters went to prison? How bout the Bush admin for getting us into an illegal war? I don't believe anyone in power anymore at all.

Interesting how 'justice' is administered with a fair and unbiased hand. Just loving this 'change' for the better!



:sarcasm:

:thumbsup:

:-(

He'll get a trial where his confession will be held against him.

Voluntary confessions are pretty good evidence.

Manning's lawyers have challenged both.

As well they should, I'm just saying consider the source and their motivations.

up anything they can and call it a "confession" and of course it was voluntary.

judged (by the POTUS no less) pre-trial. What about the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

person on the street giving an opinion, what Obama says carries a lot of weight and can and will affect the outcome of the trial.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just like Jose Pedilla was ready for a trial.

It's like people don't realize that you can be detained pending trial!

Complaint about the conditions of his detention are one thing, but to act like it's not possible or that he should be freed! Stupid!

How about everyone else charged with a crime? They should be freed too then! I mean, by that logic, they should.

AFTER they are proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty. People aren't detained because they are guilty, they are detained because they are suspects and are facing trial to determine their guilt or innocence.

TPTB are convinced, what difference does it make? Isn't that the point of a trial? To prove guilt?

People who fight for the monetary elites give up a lot of their own rights for that honor.

the military justice system requires the proving of guilt.

And do you have the experience to know what will work?

Why should we in the nation entrust you with it.

Innocent until proven guilty is a standard we use to decide whether to lock people up or not, and that's the way it ought to be. But unless I'm on his jury, I have no say in whether or not he gets punished by the state, so I have no obligation to assume he's innocent until proven otherwise.

He can have an opinion. That does not mean the jury is forced to find the same way. That's what makes the President, oh, not a dictator.

This is the reverse of those idiotic birthers who think that because someone is POTUS, they have to have more proof of their birth in the US than the rest of us do.

big deal. Doesn't mean the jury has to find him guilty. Same here. The court marital isn't going to find him guilty just because of what the President thinks. They aren't going to let him off just because the President may think he's not guilty. You wouldn't be harping on it if Obama said he thought they guy was innocent. That would be no different, though.

He deserves a speedy and fair trial in the America I want to live in. I recognize that your authoritarian America it is much more expedient, at least for the Ruling Class.

A democratic America, love it or leave it.

If i am correct in that, would the delayed trial still be a case of authoritarian America?

please give us a reference. Something.

"If i am correct in that, would the delayed trial still be a case of authoritarian America?" I am glad you asked. In one way or other, he should not be held in jail indefinitely. He should be out on bail waiting his trial. He is in jail because we are an authoritarian country. A little pre-trial torture should soften him up for the trial. Remember Jose Padilla? He was held in "detention" (read tortured) for something like two years before his trial. By the time he reached trial, he was insane. How convenient for the prosecution. Easy to try someone insane. And what difference does it make for the outcome. The man has already been punished. He is insane. I am not surprised but disappointed that President Obama would go along with this. We are fuked.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/04/Army-board-to-evaluate-Wikileaks-suspect/UPI-62651294148638/

"Lt. Col. Manning said once the board determines the soldier's fitness, the Army can move forward with the Uniform Code of Military Justice process.

Pfc. Manning has been held in solitary confinement in the brig at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia since July.

The defense requested the fitness evaluation."


edited to add: They just finished the review:

"Johnson said the move instead comes because Manning’s mental competency inquiry review is complete and “Private Manning’s presence in the Washington, D.C., area is no longer necessary for that purpose.”"

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/20/2815672/accused-wikileaks-informant-moved.html#ixzz1KObCtG7S

Manning ask for a delay before trial. Also, I find it interesting that the military needs to test Mannings mental capacity before trial. I have never heard of that before. Is that a legitimate reason to delay a "speedy" trial?

You cannot hold the government responsible for a delay caused by the defense's request.

edited to add: Yes, that sounds like a legitimate reason to delay a trial. Why would anyone want to proceed with any court proceedings when their mental capacity evaluation (that was done at their request) hasn't been completed? Such an exam could exonerate the defendant (or likewise, reinforce the prosecution's argument).

mentally fit. But then the article says the defense requested the fitness test. And the fitness test takes 6 months??? Something is smelly in Denmark.

Perhaps you can email his lawyer and ask.

to confess something to us?

I don't believe pointing out the fact there was a delay due to a defense request is taking any sides. :shrug:

treatment of Manning or not? If not, then I misunderstood your post.

First
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/2/wikileaks-source-aiding-enemy/
The Military District of Washington said trial proceedings had been delayed since last July “at the request of Manning’s defense attorneys — pending the results of a defense-requested inquiry into Manning’s mental capacity and responsibility.”

Pfc. Manning’s attorney told the Associated Press that the charges he will eventually face at any trial will be determined by the result of an Article 32 hearing — the military equivalent of a grand jury — which will not convene until after the mental health inquiry is complete.

The statement did not give any date for this.

Second
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/03/3153767.htm
A trial date has yet to be set and the army says proceedings have been delayed since July 12, 2010, pending the outcome of an inquiry into the soldier's "mental capacity" requested by defence lawyers.

And is the only reason trials get delayed, as the prosecution cannot comfortably ask for continuances.

If you don't even realize that is possible, you have so much to learn. Or are being disingenuous.

you even care?

Obviously you dont want to dialog only disrupt.

Because that would be a blanket statement of fact instead of having any connotations of passing judgment on him without due process.

After letting the previous administration of law breakers off completely from any prosecution, this administration "concern" for the law, just like yours, strikes some of us as utterly disingenuous.

If Maning has to face the full force of the laws for his actions. So do the members of the previous (and current!) administration who have caused far worse damage to our intelligence, invaded countries based of utterly false premises, and have caused unimaginable damage to not only American but untold numbers of innocent families all over the world. Alas, that is not the case is it? This administration has condoned that law breaking, while expecting the unmitigated weight of justice to be bestowed upon those who dare make this administration look bad.

And lastly, for a person like Obama, who ran on a platform of "transparency," such an attitude against whistle blowing strikes some of us as compounding the hypocrisy of this situation.

"But look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source… That’s not how the world works."

It's the release of cables that really pissed the highest officials off.

If all Manning had released was the "collateral murder" video, or the other stuff on the war with Iraq where it *was* whistleblowing... I think more people, including more people in the higher levels of government, would be supportive.

I can definitely understand the idea of "grab what you can" when you're actually trying to get data moved from one network to another (I'm speaking from my experience with migrating workstations from one OS to another just to be clear here -- heh -- but yeah, I always did my best to get as much data from the old system as time would allow). Assange had time to sort through the cables and catch any obvious double-dealings in the current administration... then they were archived I'm sure... has there been any significant scandal uncovered as a result of the cables being released?

Bradley Manning took an oath when he joined the military, and he knew the consequences for not only revealing classified information, but revealing it to someone outside of his nation. He knew that he might even be executed for it. In a volunteer military, the oath a person who joins takes gains more significance IMHO. When he chose to do that, he chose it with informed consent. One specific action that he's admitted to doing. I agree that the officials who have truly betrayed their oaths to their country *should* face the full force of the law, but unfortunately the case against Manning is more concrete and far easier to prove.

If Manning were scheduled to be executed, I'd probably be joining in the protests. He knew and chose to break the law, but that doesn't mean that he should be tortured or otherwise abused -- I'm quite tickled about the way the protesters were able to get actual face-time with the President to express their opinion. That's very rare in the protest movement, as I know personally... was a legal observer in NYC in 2003. He's gotten his suicide risk classified to "low", he's been moved as of this point. Actually, he was moved the day before the protest. I am not with those who are saying free him. But he deserves the protections he is entitled to under the UCMJ and the Constitution. He needs appropriate conditions so that he can assist in his own defense. He needs to be treated humanely, and if any of the officers in charge of him are so emotionally invested that they cannot treat him that way, they need to tell their superiors and request reassignment.

Just my opinion.

were being hidden from the public. Before the cables were released, who knew we were bombing Yemen? What's the difference between uncovering bombings in Cambodia and uncovering missile attacks in Yemen? The only difference I see is that the public is now more tolerable of such things.

Which is the law that he broke.

As far as Yemen, are you referring to attacks other than the ones mentioned here, during a different time period or additional ones? I'm not as well informed on this topic as I'd like to be so it's an honest question, not a rhetorical one.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

a lawful order?

The original first charges were those, and they would be upheld as lawful regulations IMHO. I'm sure you're familiar with the Wikipedia article that details the charges against him so you can look at the individual sections of code as well as I. None of them seem to come with more than 10 years jail time in total -- my thought is served concurrently on all counts. Given the sheer volume of material though I don't think a court martial would result in any less than that... and by taking the oath he subjected himself to the UCMJ, including giving jurisdiction for the USC violations to the military courts.

I disagree with the "aiding the enemy" charge. The other charges are more in accordance with what he actually did.

If he can successfully defend against the charge they want to give him life for (and admit is not a solid enough charge to ask the death penalty for), serving time for the rest is the price he knew he might have to pay if he did this. Did he believe in the cause for ultra-transparency to the point of making all or any leaked state secrets public regardless of if they were covering up something awful or not to serve that time? Apparently he did at the time he leaked the information to a site that published that information in that style...

If you think I am going to say that he should be let out right now without a trial given the evidence against him that has been released to the public, uh, no.

He should have been treated humanely and with all possible good treatment given the conditions the US government had to work under during various aspects of his arrest and confinement, but dude was on active duty in a war zone at first so if he experienced some deprivation at first arrest I'm willing to be a bit more lenient. Fortunately at this time he's no longer in that 6x12 cell 23x7. He still has knowledge that could be used against this country -- if he had access to that much data, there might be more. I think there is a compelling public interest in keeping him in jail until trial. He needs to have conditions that allow him to assist in his own defense. Even when he was in solitary he was not held incommunicado and had the ability to talk to people in cells next to him even if he couldn't see them.

That's why I asked: would President Obama's statement have been kosher in a person's eyes if he had said "He admitted to breaking the law" instead of "he broke the law"? Or are you asserting his confession was coerced?

Look, I'm glad for a lot of what he released. If he'd gone to a media source before admitting he'd already shared the stuff with a foreigner, things might have gone differently... or the material might not have gotten out there at all. He obviously felt strongly enough about these things being made public no matter what to not go the "Deep Throat" route and instead release to a source outside the US. Because IMHO he could more easily defend the charges that they've brought against him if he had only released information to a "traditional" media source in the US, or at the very least to a US citizen even if that person was not an anchor on CNN. He could reasonably say that he did not think the information would be used against the US. By submitting it to a website that can be accessed from anywhere, he knew it could be accessed by anyone, including the enemies of the US.

But if it was at all an action that was taken by mature thought, the man thought this out and weighed the good what he was doing with the bad of what might happen to him for doing it.

He is innocent until proven guilty in spite of what he says or what he is supposed to have said. Good grief. Why are there so many right wing wacko's on DU?

Should a person be convicted, no matter what the crime, before he is apprehended and taken to jail? Oh boy, there's evidence and all, but he's not been convicted, we can't put that person who just might go kill someone else behind bars so he doesn't hurt anyone else yet!

"Innocent until proven guilty" and "keep society safe until a speedy trial" are not values that are mutually exclusive. They had to have evidence against him to arrest him, they had that evidence and did arrest him. Now he needs to be held in reasonable, humane conditions and allowed to assist in his own defense, so that there can BE a trial.

And when the trial comes along, are you saying that a juror shouldn't vote to convict unless they've seen the crime themselves?

Good grief, why are there so many people who are ignorant about the way the judicial system works (and why it wouldn't under those ideas0 here on DU?

It is fair for society to be safe from those suspected of being dangerous. I dont think that applies in this case. I agree that when held, it should be in reasonable and humane conditions. There seems to be some question about this.

"And when the trial comes along, are you saying that a juror shouldn't vote to convict unless they've seen the crime themselves?" Oh please. I am saying that just because you tell me that he confessed isnt enough. If you have a link to his confession, then please share it.

And inferring that I am ignorant may not be inaccurate but definitely rude.

;)

Moving on...

"It is fair for society to be safe from those suspected of being dangerous."

Glad we agree there. But what choice did they have but to arrest him when they had evidence that he had leaked classified information? Continue to let it leak until they had convened a jury to convict him? No, it's not quite the same as the person who has enough evidence against them to warrant being arrested for murder, but the amount of danger that the leak was creating was significant enough to arrest him.

Given national security issues, it's *highly* unlikely he would ever be given bail -- and since one of the crimes he's charged with does qualify for the death penalty even if they aren't asking for it, it's even more unlikely. It's unheard of anywhere in the judicial system to allow an absolute right to bail on capital crimes. But at least he does have a pre-trial hearing soon to determine if he should be held over for trial at all.

Glad we also agree on humane conditions and a speedy trial. I'm willing to be somewhat lenient on the MPs when he was in jail in Kuwait as conditions go, but once he was at Quantico there was no excuse for inhumane treatment.

But saying to free him right now without a trial, when there was enough evidence to arrest... I can't do that.

Edit to add: Neither of us may know everything about military law, but apparently Google does! http://court-martial.com/ucmj-pretrial-restraint/ Pretty much no right to bail in the military. At least he volunteered to have that particular restriction on him, instead of being drafted to have it....

your stance is authoritarian and not progressive? You dont have a problem with the fact that the military takes away his rights as a citizen? I know that Nancy Grace wouldnt care, but I would hope a open-minded progressive would object to someone losing their Constitutional rights even if they "signed" them away.

As far a national security, that is used to justify all kinds of ills.

The way it's written:

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Being held without an indictment, if you are in the military, when in actual service, and in a time of war or "public danger", is written into the Constitution.... it's would almost have to be Constitutional one would think.

One thing that is not written into the Constitution at all, however, is any absolute right to bail:

Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Notice the tone of the entire Amendment seems to be about fairness, and the way it's interpreted is based on the judge's understanding of the accused's financial situation, ties to the community, passports, etc. A poor mother with five kids and nearby family would likely pay less bail than a single person with no nearby family that made the same amount. It's designed to make it so they can't set so high of a bail it is essentially denying bail on a bailable offense (all of which to my knowledge are defined under State law).

Most state's laws define capital offenses as non-bailable crimes unless the court finds the evidence on the charge to not be sufficient on its face for even reasonable suspicion. That's a similar standard of proof that's required under the UCMJ for pretrial confinement, along with the determination that the other option available -- an arrangement very similar to being released on bail but without the solider having to pay any kind of bail bond -- isn't workable for whatever reason. That's the very definition of "due process".

-------------

Are you saying it's impossible for a person to be a progressive and still recognize that laws in and of themselves are not horrifically evil just because they're laws? Unjust laws and unjust application of laws are the problem, not the law itself.

As far as the Nancy Grace crack, while I don't appreciate her contribution to Missing White Girl Syndrome, I *am* somewhat biased there. I volunteer for an organization that works to help find the missing and give names to the unidentified dead. The fact that she will run stories about the missing at all is good, and she was one of the few that gave any press at all to the Mitrice Richardson case. I hope she continues to progress. ;)

And you're still attacking me personally and questioning my liberal credentials, which are not kosher debate tactics and instead mere attempts to score points off of me. Please stop if you want to continue this discussion civilly otherwise it is not worth my time to continue to converse with you.

Do you consider that this is a "time of war"? If so, what war? The only wars we have been engaged in since WW II (the big one) are the perpetual wars on poverty, drugs and terror.

From what I know of the case, it involves whistle-blowing. I believe that the confidential classification of documents is misused to hid information from the public that is not critical to the defense of the country but possibly embarrassing to those that are supposed to be working in our interest. If Pvt Manning released information that is truly detrimental to our defense, he should be punished accordingly. But I fear he is being used as a scapegoat to frighten future potential whistle-blowers.

I do not believe that a person can sign away their Constitutional rights.

I do apologize for straying from respectful discussion civility. It's a bad habit I am trying to break.

"Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is a legal presumption that establishes the burden of proof in a court.

Unless you live in some weird other world, there is a whole table of folks on one side of the courtroom that walk in thinking and saying that the guy is guilty. In fact, they spend the first half of the trial explaining why they think that.

Interestingly, we put this function in the executive branch, of which Obama is the chief executive.

have an orgasm.

Manning just dumped a lot of files. I like what Manning did, but I don't think is a whistle blower, he's more of a pot stirrer, which I like.

it's upsetting to me because someone who's an OFFICER OF THE COURT** and the CIC of the US Military opined that Manning broke the law. That's why!

This isn't about some drunk in a bar who offered an opinion in the matter.


**I suppose someone will show up to tell me that Obama let his law license lapse, so he's no longer an officer of the court. If he did or he didn't, doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. He's still a lawyer and he had no business making that statement. It says something about his character and his ethical standards, IMO. x(

*Applies only to the poor.

Including some in the current system public and private

Two tier justice, the more accurate comment would be that he did something that he did not like, using 'law' on such a thing defames the value of law.

We are currently in anarchy, justice has not been reestablished.


And actually two tier justice is opposite of justice and worse then anarchy, since it tries to use a disguise of justice against a few.

shrug,


I am due beer and travel money and that has not yet arrived, so I know a bit about that topic.

Set him free.

truth to power. Authoritarians worship power and shun those that dont. I am surprised you still are on DU. You clearly dont support Democratic principles. Your attitude toward Manning reminds me of Nancy Grace. You arent Nancy are you?

and each time you take their money you give them more legitimacy than they deserve.

Unlikely, when the CinC declares the accused guilty.

I expected better of you, sir.

:shrug:

No? Then the President should STFU. He's at the top of Manning's chain and has no business publicly commenting on a pending CM. It's called command influence.

This guy admited to doing it there is no doubt he is guilty. This DU obsession with this traitor making him out to be some sort of hero is disgusting.

He will get his trial and he will be found guilty he confessed for christ sakes and bragged about his actions to others. This is not a case of an innocent being unfairly accused this is a case of someone guilty awaiting a trial to make that guilt official.

Fuck Brad manning I hope the prick rots in jail forever.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

cannot be tried or detained and must be freed because some uninformed person deems them a "hero?"

guilty and should be punished w/o a stupid trial. Are you Nancy Grace?

A right to never be detained pending trial. Sorry that's not the law under this constitution.

BTW are you against bail, too? Should people be freed pending trial without bail in all cases, too?

You think it "authoritarian" to have anything be against the law? To try anyone for violating the law?

He has a right not to be tortured. He has a right not to be declared guilty by the fuking President of the USofA.
You are the one that wants to by-pass his rights as a good little authoritarian follower. You have no empathy.

The hell with a trial. Hang him immediately.

How do you call yourself a Democrat???

Anything that might affect the military jury and give the impression that a particular verdict was ordered by a superior. And when it comes to the military, there ain't no one more superior than Mr. Obama these days.

How ironic might it be, if Manning's entire case is thrown out because of Obama's remark?

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 37. UNLAWFULLY INFLUENCING ACTION OF COURT

(a) No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercises of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceedings. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts. The foregoing provisions of the subsection shall not apply with respect to

(1) general instructional or informational courses in military justice if such courses are designed solely for the purpose of instructing members of a command in the substantive and procedural aspects of courts-martial, or

(2) to statements and instructions given in open court by the military judge, president of a special court-martial, or counsel.

(b) In the preparation of an effectiveness, fitness, or efficiency report on any other report or document used in whole or in part for the purpose of determining whether a member of the armed forces is qualified to be advanced, in grade, or in determining the assignment or transfer of a member of the armed forces or in determining whether a member of the armed forces should be retained on active duty, no person subject to this chapter may, in preparing any such report (1) consider or evaluate the performance of duty of any such member, as counsel, represented any accused before a court-martial.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-37.htm

said he thought Tom DeLay would be found innocent.

Those were different times, I guess.

you can do whatever you like and some people will support you.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909547-3,00.html

In Los Angeles, the effect of Nixon's remarks on the Manson trial was instant and dramatic. While the Los Angeles Times came out the same afternoon with a four-inch headline reading MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES, Judge Charles Older went to great lengths to ensure that the jury, which has been sequestered since the trial began, would not learn of Nixon's remarks. The windows of the jury bus were whited over with Bon Ami so that no juror could glimpse the headline on street newsstands. If the jury discovered Nixon's verdict, the defense might have grounds for a mistrial. His efforts were to no avail. Next day Manson himself displayed a copy of the Times to the jury for some ten seconds before a bailiff grabbed the newspaper from his hands. Judge Older called a recess, then questioned the jurors one by one to satisfy himself that their judgment would not be affected. An alternate juror convulsed the courtroom when he announced his disclaimer: "I didn't vote for Nixon in the first place." The judge denied a motion for a mistrial,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, here ultimately it mattered not. But neither does it negate the fact that when a President opines on a trial, the effect CAN be deleterious to justice.

get a fair trail when the President of the USofA has already claim him guilty? I also do not respect the pre-trial punishment of indefinite detention. I am sure Bush and Cheney love it.

the other side of the aisle.

What you posted is not the truth, or factual.

"The public is lied to every day by the President, by his spokespeople, by his officers. If you can't handle the thought that the President lies to the public for all kinds of reasons, you couldn’t stay in the government at that level, or you’re made aware of it, a week. ... The fact is Presidents rarely say the whole truth—essentially, never say the whole truth—of what they expect and what they’re doing and what they believe and why they’re doing it and rarely refrain from lying, actually, about these matters.<28"[br />

Daniel Ellsberg (N.B.: He's not referencing Obama specifically.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg


Point: I wouldn't take anything Mr. Obama says on this topic seriously.

he is nobody!!! Sorry if you don't like me...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He is somebody.

You are out to lunch.

values. Go back to where ever you came from. We are in a war for our freedom and we dont need "friends" like you.

Envisioning a very large number of people from current and former administrations writing this on the chalkboard.

We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate.
We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate.
We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate.
We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate.
We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate.

Are you saying that we shouldn't have prosecutors in the executive branch?

Obama is not part of the trial, btw.

That would be everybody, right? Yet we have seen that nearly everybody who is Somebody has skated so far. Obama and Holder seem to agree on these decisions:

The decision not to prosecute for war crimes:

Abundant evidence exists of criminal behavior by Wall Streeters. One of the top perps even said "I did it!"

But Manning will have his day in court.

No one who's awaiting a trial should be subjected to that.

not seeing the issue

he broke the law

Neither does a confession constitute guilt.

(I brought you some Wendy's and some Mike's Hard Lemonade)

The chat room transcript may be entered as evidence. It's not entered into the record as a confession.


I've not yet to be had for the price of a fast-food meal on a cardboard carton and an artificially flavored malt beverage. The least you can do is throw in a cigarette and a match.

Pervs quite often go directly to solitary while they await trial because they aren't safe in general population.

So much for a nation of laws....

:shrug:

for extended periods of time.

He broke the law, ya know! He confessed!

Duh.

D'uh!

to The President or even State Senator or even US Senator Obama for allegations after the SoL?

"We're a nation of laws, nation of laws."

Laws for the wealthy and powerful & laws for the rest of us.

If pre-trial punishment is appropriate for Manning (lawless!), it's appropriate for Obama (war crimes!).

Is there a replay?

Bush et al also confessed.

The difference is 100,000s of innocents died for lies. Wealth and respect was drained from the USA.

The financial sector related foreign policy has also multitudes of criminals that have a free ride.

Manning is a 21 year old PFC that more blame is on his immediate supervisors for their vetting of Manning if he is the source of leaks (IMO likely).

Manning is a whistleblower. Was Manning a spy for another agency or did he receive payment? Manning divulged, if guilty, much deserved embarrassment to the USA. A PFC should note had access much less unsecure access.

Most Democratic and anti-war people of some age consider Daniel Ellsberg a hero that helped end a pointless war and Ellsberg was never prosecuted.

PFC Manning likely has neither the intelligence nor connections of Ellsberg but knew right from wrong.

with manning though. and no. i do not seeing manning as a whistle blower. downloading tens of thousands communication and going on a fishing trip is not a whistle blower

You agree that if you are subject to a justice system it is by UCMJ.

also there is this thing about the US constitution being the law of the land and all that pesky stuff that implies. Amazing how some people are ever so willing to forget as to make their preferred sports team, I mean political party look good.

I wonder why military tribunals are necessary if soldiers supposedly waive their constitutional rights to a fair trial, eh? I am just baffled by threads like these, because apparently and sadly some Democrats are capable of the same (or even lager) level of logical dissonance as the Republicans are. Sigh.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Another Lawyer/President went there




Didn't do Charley any good though, he just got old.

There are plenty of good reasons to object to Bradley Manning's treatment. This silly complaint only distracts from them.

he hasn't been tried or convicted. There is a difference.

It's wrong to punish him without a trial. It would be wrong to punish him in the way he's been punished even if he had been convicted. But it's not wrong for Obama to state that he broke the law. He clearly did.

the presumption of innocence, as quaint and obsolete as such a concept may seem these days. Briefly put, you are presumed innocent of any crime until the state has proven your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a duly constituted court.

That has not yet happened in Manning's case. And you cheapen yourself and all your principles if you say Manning 'clearly' broke the law when no such thing has yet been established. In the eyes of the law, Manning is innocent as I write.

I am not the law. Nor is Barack Obama.

I am allowed to say that O. J. Simpson broke the law, that George Bush broke the law, that Richard Nixon broke the law, that Henry Kissinger broke the law, and so on even though not one of them has been convicted. The rules are not different simply because it is Bradley Manning.

For that matter, the independence of personal judgments from legal judgments also allows us to think certain people are innocent even though they have been convicted. I highly doubt those in this thread who proclaim Bradley Manning's due process rights, as if those were relevant, would call into question our capacity to say that.

yet to be established. It's 'alleged' that Manning broke the law but it has not been established that he did.

Furthermore, I think it is extremely questionable that someone in the chain of command (Obama) is weighing in on the with an opinion about Manning's guilt or innocence ahead of the trial - brings the entire concept of due process and presumption of innocence into question, imho. Oh well, just as 'quaint and obsolete' as those Geneva Conventions that the Bush Admin dispensed with.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not it is reasonable to believe.

I don't see why it being "someone in the chain of command" makes any difference. Indeed, if anything, government officials saying so is especially appropriate, given that it's the government alleging that he committed the crime.

under Military Law. Therefore it is very wrong for the CIC to make any statement about anyone being accused and held by the US military regarding their guilt or innocence.

You, otoh, are just an ordinary citizen, should you become CIC I would hope you would not comment on legal matters such as this

You can say just about anything you want. The President saying it drives a truck through the right to a fair trial. That's well established in legal precedent. If we had a just legal system, Manning would be walking out the door after that debacle.

he certainly is free to express his opinion.

But in his position as President and a reported "Constitutional Law Professor" he really doesn't come across as the smartest guy in the room on this one.

we disagree.

It is a narrow limit, one that concerns the state's power to punish, not the opinions of individuals, be they me or Barack Obama.

(whatever the fuck that means) and it has very little to do with the state's power to punish except indirectly.

time as he is tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a duly constituted court.

:rofl:

Bush is right up there with the Duke lacrosse players when it comes to DU presuming their innocence.

:rofl:

the Iraq War was a massive war crime, I would like to think that were I appointed to sit on a jury at the Hague or, perish the notion, the U.S. Court here in Los Angeles, that I could set aside my beliefs to give Bush the same presumption of innocence I would want for myself were I accused of a crime.

I don't know if I could do it and, in all honesty, I might have to say to the judge hearing the case that I should be excused if I felt I could not presume Bush's absolute innocence until all evidence and closing arguments presented, instructions given and deliberations begun.

Quaint and obsolete? Perhaps

I notice you got crickets in reply.

What proof do you have?

Among other things.

As far as I understand it, the vast majority of Manning's defenders argue not that he didn't break the law, but rather that his law-breaking was morally defensible. (Others, myself included, don't think his law-breaking was morally defensible, but think his treatment by the Pentagon is morally offensive.)

I'm sure he'll be a wonderful witness for the prosecution. LOL

:popcorn:

he doesn't deserve to be treated the way he's being treated. Where's your compassion for your fellow man, Obama?

... next time you decide, as a "reporter", to embed yourself with folks walking down the street with RPGs, you might want to rethink that one...

Or, the ones in the imagination of the murderers.

... was amazing.

My God, I wonder what it's like in your mind.

Or, the imprisonment of one who reveals it as justified.

I am utterly and completely amazed at your ability to consider a guy wandering down the street with an armed gang and an RPG a "civilian" who is due a "trial." I would love for you to explain how that would work. Really. I double dog dare you to follow a logical thought process on that one.

I try to tell myself that you don't mean it and the fact that you were completely and totally shut down by facts made you lash out with a big bout of stupid as you have no other alternative.

If the insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan are "armed gangs" what does that make the U.S. Military? What of the other unarmed civilians killed in the video? By what right was that helicopter there? If being armed in Baghdad is seen as an intolerable threat by the U.S. Military how did Blackwater, et al, escape being shot from helicopters?

How about you try a "logic" quiz? A cop sees an armed suspect holding a gun in a group of people. He opens fire on the group. In my "illogical" thinking he is accountable for the deaths of all the people he killed.

You seem to believe that because the U.S. Military was there (under false pretenses and without a declaration of war) it was to be given a free hand to be cop/judge/jury and executioner in deciding who lives or dies.

is that THE PRESIDENT can still get campaign contributions from the law breakers on Wall Street.

That about sums it up.

Some equals are more equals than other equals.

Sure we like knowing the information disclosed but some of that information could hurt the country and the president. Manning had no right to take it upon himself to judge weather this info should be public. He is not the president.
I will add that he doesn't deserve your love and support, he didn't do it for you, he did it for revenge and spite.

Papers, the act that gave rise to the White House Plumbers and ultimately caused Nixon's resignation in disgrace.

Oh, wait, are you saying that Ellsburg also broke the law? OK - just want to be sure I understand where you're coming from.

It's amazing the animus toward Manning around here. I think a lot of people seem to have an authoritarian mind set.

You really don't get it.

And, nice minding reading there. Usually one must dial an 800 number and pay $20 dollars to get a reading of that quality!

Isn't this the same person who said that we must not even talk about war crimes because we have so much more important things to do? That we must 'look forward'! Iow, this is the president who said 'we must look away from the horrific war crimes committed against millions of human beings'!

And he expects to be taken seriously when he spouts the old 'we're a nation of laws' nonsense.

Btw, if we're a nation of laws, has he directed his DOJ to look into the war crimes revealed on the video 'Collateral Damage'? Or those revealed in the Iraq/Afghanistan War Logs??

Sickening, mostly because they assume we are stupid.

the soldier who helped rescue the two children filmed in Collateral Murder.

http://www.thenation.com/video/160118/ethan-mccord-incidents-collateral-murder-happen-almost-daily-iraq

that he is a Constitutional scholar.

Not when he has allowed egregious violations of a sacred document to stand without challenge.

that only applies when discussing accused war criminals but not when discussing those whose actions brought war crimes to light.

Buh-bye Obama. Won't be voting for you in 2012.

outing Valerie Plame? What about the multitude of war criminals under the Bush reign of terror? Hmmm?

"And I have to abide by certain rules of classified information." Really, Mr. President? Really?

Gawd! He makes me sick! I was right. I was right during the primaries when I told my co-worker that he was an empty suit.

But I got on-board. I stood in line for two hours outside a stadium when he came to my city. I stood, and then sat with, a young African-American woman and her two beautiful little daughters, and I felt a sense of, yes, "hope". Gak!!

I've betrayed my conscience. Never, never again.

Don'tcha know? :(

that Manning should receive.

Must I repeat? Obama as the head of the military has now passed judgment on a man who awaits trial in a military court.

And this is okay because...???

"Some" of you think he's already guilty too. I know that. I can read the thread. But what happened to the presumption of innocence? No matter what you think of Manning or what you think of his actions, surely we at DU believe he deserves some fairness in his hearing.

Yet Obama, Manning's boss, the boss of every other military person, has already pronounced him guilty before he's even gone to trial!

This seems kind of obvious to me. We're supposed to trust in the fairness and impartiality of a military trial, yet the commander in chief himself has apparently already ruled on the case. Gee.

Really? He did?

Oh, wait. He didn't.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He is the CIC and should have refused to comment.

Manning's attorneys should now ask for a dismissal of the case.

He is a person who exposed war crimes, this president has stated we should not care about war crimes and just 'look forward'.

In that case, he should have no problem 'looking forward' wrt to the whistle-blower who had not received the message about war crimes being US policy now.

Now that Manning KNOWS we don't prosecute war crimes, he can simply apologize for exposing them and get on with his life. The military needs to make sure to tell the troops about this new policy on war crimes. How was a lowly soldier to know that his oath and the Constitution no longer apply?

therefore, the prosecutor. This is no different than from the prosecutor thinking the defendant is guilty. Every prosecutor thinks the defendant is guilty, or they would not have brought the case. The defendant has a right to a lawyer and that lawyer will always say his client is not guilty.

for our constitutional law expert President to refrain from making blanket statements about this.

I don't know if Manning is guilty or innocent, hero or traitor. If you look back on my posting history I've made no presumptions either way BUT I do think it's important he gets as far a trial as he can.

I think the CIC of the military making a judgement about a man serving under his command, who will now be judged by his peers who also serve under Obama's command, is both wrong and unfair.

Since there is a dual role for the President (prosecutor and CIC), the least he could do in this case where there is a conflict of interest is to NOT taint the "jury pool" as it were.

Unless that were something he were trying to do on purpose...???

Furthermore, if their goal has been to keep Manning "safe", by declaring him guilty already, then sending him into a medium security prison as a person already branded a treasonous traitor by the President of the United States, Obama has made him considerably LESS safe.

The First Amendment applies to them too.

He can pronounce guilt or innocence for people who are presumably within his care, custody and control who are destined for trial by their peers who are also servants of said CIC?

I'm not looking for an emotional Dem reaction, but a legal one. The CIC has proclaimed this man guilty already. But Manning has not yet faced trial. That trial will now occur with a jury pool who have already been told that Manning is a treasonous traitor by their boss. And yet we expect that trial's findings will be fair?

Obama may have 1st Amendment rights but that's not what I'm asking. Has he tainted the jury pool? And do Manning's lawyers have a fair shot at declaring a mistrial for Obama's pre-trial declaration of guilty?

Manning admitted to the crimes and the crimes are serious. It would behoove his fanclub to understand that. It's the case against Assange that is squishy.

it might behoove his fan club to understand that due process is still the law in this country.