Obama Proclaims Manning Guilty Before He Has Been Tried. This Violates Manning's right

Obama Proclaims Manning Guilty Before He Has Been Tried. This Violates Manning's right To A Fair Trial

Posted on Apr 23, 2011

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/obama_presumes_bradley_manning_guilty_20110423/

President Obama said in an impromptu interview that accused WikiLeaker Pfc. Bradley Manning “broke the law” by sharing classified documents.

The trouble is, Manning has yet to be tried in a court of law. The 23-year-old has been incarcerated since May 2010, facing a battery of charges for his alleged involvement in releasing state secrets to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks site. He was moved from Quantico, Va., to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., last week amid growing concern about the severity of his treatment. Protesters in San Francisco had pressed Obama on Thursday to free Manning, spurring his off-the-cuff remarks. —KDG

being soft on crime- libs don't you know- so he allowed a man in Arkansas to die in their death row. He did it for his election. This is no different. If you actually believe that they give a shit about anyone but themselves, you will be hurt. Obama is running for president. If someone dies, tough shit.

I'm curious.

must charge a person, allow a hearing (or several) and the prosecution has to turn over all evidence to the defendant and their counsel. They then have the right to address every CHARGE the prosecution makes.

Problem here is that Obama is president, not judge, jury and prosecution. His diplomatic response should be - that will be up to the prosecution to prove, that Manning is guilty.
Not that he *IS* with out trial.

Cheers
Sandy

Go figure...

No.
Obama's job is NOT to pre-judge and convict people before trial.
In fact, it is a tradition for the White House NOT to comment an anything before a trial.

...certainly his boss can do the same. POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer not Chief Justice.

He still needs to pander to his base before he finds himself on the outs.

It's bad enough that we were cajoled and buffaloed into believing he was some great vox populi after the obviousness of his legislative record, but to hear the same twaddle after the record of the last two years is a testimony to human gullibility.

He should know better. Innocent until proven guilty. Have a trial first, then if convicted, he can rightfully say Manning "broke the law".

Actually, it's not necessary to be a Constitutional scholar or even a lawyer to know better. Obama has no excuse for this kind of foot in mouth moment; the ramifications for Manning are far too weighty and obvious.

Obama daring to defend Manning, who's not particularly liked among average Americans, would be disastrous wouldn't it?

There's no defense involved in knowing better than to definitively state, before there's been a fair court martial or trial proving it one way or the other, that Manning broke the law.

who will all be fellow soldiers. In that respect, it appears Obama's comments taint the jury pool. I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that Manning's lawyers have a pretty good case for a mistrial. If the military chief has already declared him guilty as a treasonous traitor, how does anyone think his peers are going to vote?

However, in fairness, a DUer named treestar on another thread posited that Obama is head of the Executive Branch and thus is also acting as the "prosecutor" in this case, and thereby as the prosecutor would absolutely believe Manning is guilty. I'm not sure if treestar is an attorney, I would love to get some lawyerly feedback on this.

For me, I believe Obama has ensured Manning cannot get a fair military trial, and that Obama has greatly erred here in making this statement.

There is no law that say the President can't state that a person that obviously and unquestionably broke the law, broke the law.

First off, its painfully fucking obvious that the administration and the military believe he broke the law, otherwise he wouldn't be detained right now. You can't taint a case by stating your opinion on guilt when everyone all ready fucking knows what your opinion is before you spoke a word. Like it was some big, god damn secret that President Obama and his administration thinks Manning broke the law, like NO ONE had ANY IDEA until Pres. Obama made these comments.

Guilty until proven innocent

THAT'S NOT DEMOCRACY

That the person that heads the side of the prosecution, and is in fact a lawyer

doesn't go around declaring someone guilty before they've even been charged.

That's just plain stupid, the most common you would say is alleged, and the most prudent would be no comment.

This is backed up by the fact that the White House has retracted the statement.

Manning is being tried and found guilty in the scumbag corporate media

He will NEVER get a public trial because the evidence would expose the dirty rotten sh*t of the MIC.

That's exactly what the prosecution does.

The presumption of innocence is assumed by the judge and jury, not the prosecution.

The person that heads the side of the government, and is in fact a lawyer


why did they retract then?

Unless we are speaking of a dictatorship, he is not the judge and Jury and may not, in a public forum, make the statement: "He broke the law", before a trial and adjudication on a verdict of guilty.

It is like, as a wise poster up thread noted; A judge saying: "bring the guilty thug in and lets have a fair trial" (said much better than my paraphrasing)

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

in this context

I think Inna knows "what" it is but is confused about how and why you are using it in this context.

I think the source of that confusion is you.

When no such thing has occurred. Your claims are frivolous and not to be taken seriously. Yet you are clinging to them despite the ignorant basis for them. You might as well be running around with your pants around your ankles. At least that would be entertaining.

just not worth it

self-convicted the man without benefit of trial. In the least, it is pre-trial extreme prejudice against Manning by the new Decider.

A country can be a Democracy and not have that rule, or it can be a non-Democracy and have it.

At any rate, the President stating that a person (particularly one who, like Manning, has confessed) is guilty doesn't violate his Constitutional protections, since no sentence is being imposed. Only a judge can declare someone guilty.

It is silly to think that his words carry no weight.

It's called Presumption of Innocence.

from Wiki

""This right is so important in modern democracies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:""

""Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship""

I never said Obama could not say what he did. Just that he should not have said it.

This is confirmed now that the White House has retracted.

of everyone involved from the judge, the jury and the accused, has declared he's guilty - before the trial - and that's not a problem?

I'm not talking about Obama as the prosecutor because that's his DOJ and if this were a different case that didn't involve a military court maybe that would be different.

I'm talking about Obama as their superior officer making that kind of statement, and it's ramifications and effect. He's just said out loud that Manning is a treasonous traitor yet you're saying that statement would have no bearing on the court? That even putting it out there would be ridiculous for any defense atty?

zig hail

legal pronouncements; without guile or the least subtlety; attempting to make a ridiculous argument appear of substance with naught but bombast.

You're quite wrong. According to long accepted legal principles, what Obama has done makes it impossible for Manning to get a fair trial. In a just legal system,Manning would be walking out the door this minute if not sooner.

Look up "prejudicial statements." You are quite in error in your understanding of the legal issue here.

treestar knows not of which s/he speaks.

What if he did this and in the process has set a trap for the prosecution. Now any defense attorney can claim that his client can not get a fair trial anywhere in the US, since he has already been proclaimed Guilty by no less than the President of the United States, our US Military Comander in Chief.

Anything's possible. But somehow I just don't believe that.

It will be really interesting if the hardcore Obama supporters, who endorse everything he does no matter what, show up on this thread and begin telling all of us that he DID do this on purpose to ensure Manning's release.

Now wouldn't THAT blow the lid off DU for a while? Heh....

we'd have some fun watching bushbot heads explode.

for this speculation.

For example if he had made sure his own personal physician of 20+ years was allowed to attend the WH townhall meeting, instead of him being cancelled at the last moment, and then called upon him instead of Ron Williams then I might lend some credence, but that is not what happened.

Watch what is done, not what is said or what we would like to happen.

That scenario is just wishful thinking. O has made his contempt for Manning consistently clear and indeed has made that contempt clear for all whistlblowers exposing fraud,corruption, treason or any other sort of malfeasance that could put his predecessors, the banksters, the fraudsters, or any of the powers that be, on trial.

A trial that would, by its very nature, be a catharsis of biblical proportions for this country and democracy.

All clues lead to 0's using Manning as an example of what will happen to anyone who exposes any wrongdoing on his watch or those that came before, now locked under the whimsical "looking forward" lid; "laws according to 0",(the constitutional scholar), whatajoke.

Note to 0 from the powers that be.

If you are standing guard on a maze of Chinese rooms filled with Machiavellian plots and treasons such as * et al, (to spotlight just one); that would put a bunch of neocons elites and pugs in a noose, the electric chair or prison for the rest of their "natural" lives, you have to be torturing whistlblowers as a warning to the inevitable, army that is privy to all the wrongdoing in "your" (our) government.

Wrongdoing that can only be kept secret with jackboots and threats of torture.

Heinous criminal wrongdoing that is hidden under the almost jocular platitude, "looking forward", which is just a catch phrase for the lid on Pandora's box.

And too, just a lyrical catchphrase for fascism

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/23/manning/index.html

"...But even more fascinating is Obama's invocation of America's status as a "nation of laws" to justify why Manning must be punished. That would be a very moving homage to the sanctity of the rule of law -- if not for the fact that the person invoking it is the same one who has repeatedly engaged in the most extraordinary efforts to shield Bush officials from judicial scrutiny, investigation, and prosecution of every kind for their war crimes and surveillance felonies. Indeed, the Orwellian platitude used by Obama to justify that immunity -- Look Forward, Not Backward -- is one of the greatest expressions of presidential lawlessness since Richard Nixon told David Frost that "it's not illegal if the President does it."

But it's long been clear that this is Obama's understanding of "a nation of laws": the most powerful political and financial elites who commit the most egregious crimes are to be shielded from the consequences of their lawbreaking -- see his vote in favor of retroactive telecom immunity, his protection of Bush war criminals, and the way in which Wall Street executives were permitted to plunder with impunity -- while the most powerless figures (such as a 23-year-old Army Private and a slew of other low-level whistleblowers) who expose the corruption and criminality of those elites are to be mercilessly punished. And, of course, our nation's lowest persona non grata group -- accused Muslim Terrorists -- are simply to be encaged for life without any charges. Merciless, due-process-free punishment is for the powerless; full-scale immunity is for the powerful. "Nation of laws" indeed.

One final irony to Obama's embrace of this lofty justifying term: Manning's punitive detention conditions are themselves illegal, as the Uniform Code of Military Justice expressly bars the use of pre-trial detention as a means of imposing punishment. Given how inhumane Manning's detention conditions have been -- and the fact that much of it was ordered in contradiction to the assessments of the brig's psychiatric staff -- there is little question that this is exactly what has happened. The President lecturing us yesterday about how Manning must be punished because we're a "nation of laws" is the same one presiding over and justifying Manning's unlawful detention conditions.

Then, in response to Price's raising the case of Daniel Ellsberg, we have this from Obama:

...

What Obama said there is technically true, but not the way he intended. Indeed, the truth of the matter makes exactly the opposite point as the one the President attempted to make. The 42 volumes of the Pentagon Papers leaked by Ellsberg to The New York Times were designated "TOP SECRET": the highest secrecy designation under the law. By stark contrast, not a single page of the materials allegedly leaked by Manning to Wikileaks was marked "top secret"; to the contrary, it was all marked "secret" or "classified": among the lowest level secrecy classifications. Using the Government's own standards, then, the leak by Ellsberg was vastly more dangerous than the alleged leak by Manning..."

If Obama was the judge, that would be a different story.....

"...How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt? Numerous commentators have noted how egregiously wrong was Obama's condemnation. Michael Whitney wrote: "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." BoingBoing's Rob Beschizza interpreted Obama's declaration of guilt this way: "Just so you know, jurors subordinate judging officers!" And Politico quoted legal experts explaining why Obama's remarks are so obviously inappropriate.

It may be that Obama spoke extemporaneously and without sufficient forethought, but it is -- at best -- reckless in the extreme for him to go around decreeing people guilty who have not been tried: especially members of the military who are under his command and who will be adjudged by other members of the military under his command..."

He wears several different hats in this particular case, sound of can opening, distinct odor of worms.

he is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else....listen, you guys here at DU have to meet your anti Obama post quota....I understand that....but this is total BS.....

So he doesn't wear these nifty titles that mean he actually IS the final legal authority in these matters?

Obama is certainly entitled to his opinion, PRIVATELY, but legally in his position, if he really wants justice to be honorably served, he should keep his mouth shut.

I have no opinion whether Manning is guilty or innocent. You can check my post history, I'm not partial. But I 110% believe he deserves a fair and impartial trial. Obama as his boss, and the boss of all of Manning's jury members, should not be commenting on this.

The President, according to the Constitution, must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

He's not entitled to giving his opinion in public if that interferes with the law. Of course we know Manning's imprisonment without trial is a total sham anyway.

Calling someone guilty before trial is something they do in communist, fascist, dictatorships, oligarchy's and corporatocracies.

Where does Obama think he is? Oh wait, nevermind.

He's in the United States of Goldman Sachs. And GE, and Halliburton

who's filthy dirty laundry might be exposed if there was a public trial. Just like the rest of the "detainees" still in Gitmo after all these years of Obama doing nothing.

And have a court martial try him.

or he is pressuring his subordinate officers to prejudice that court martial.

revamped rules for military tribunals put in to place by the Pentagon in 2006.

Before then, there was no expectation of a presumption of innocence in a military tribunal.

If the judging officers deem a defendant guilty because they think that's what their boss wants, they will be disobeying orders. (Obviously, that could certainly happen though.)

His weighing in clearly indicates which way he wants to see it go - no matter what the evidence might show.

The military justice system is supposed to be independent of the Executive, but that is a legal fiction due to the fact that the Executive is the CIC. That is why it is imperative that he not say anything that could influence the court-martial judges.

When did that change?

The only mention in regards to the law in his list of duties is "he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed". Since the law specifies that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, then if anyone - including himself - proclaims guilt without trial that person is not faithfully executing the law.

He is not a "law enforcement officer". He cannot arrest anyone. He has to tell someone else to arrest them. He cannot try anyone. He has to tell others that he wants someone tried. And if that someone else doesn't want to do it, his only recourse is to have them fired - remember Archibald Cox?

The fact that the Attorney General is subordinate to him does not make him the nation's chief LEO, any more than the chief engineer at GE being subordinate to the president of GE make the president of GE the company's top engineer.

Where, please?

Right to jury (meaning a right to be not convicted by 'authority'); right to protection from self incrimination; right to be safe from unwarranted search and seizure - they add up to 200+ years of constitutional protection of the individual against the power of the state and its leaders.

Take a fucking civics class.

"Innocent until proven guilty" and "right to a trial by a jury of your peers" are two things Americans seem to be universally falsely convinced are in the constitution (the latter, in fact, comes from Commonlaw to keep aristocrats from being tried by commoners).

"Innocent" is not a concept in American law. A person who has been tried and found guilty is guilty, any person in any other situation is not guilty. The President (or his employee, the prosecuting judge advocate) saying that a person is guilty does not make him guilty, nor does it keep a trial from happening to determine that guilt. (If the President didn't think he was guilty, in fact, somebody would have a lot more explaining to do than they do already).

"...UPDATE: In response to the controversy created by Obama’s declaration of Manning’s guilt, the White House now says that the President merely was "making a general statement that did not go specifically to the charges against Manning: 'The president was emphasizing that, in general, the unauthorized release of classified information is not a lawful act,' Friday night. 'He was not expressing a view as to the guilt or innocence of Pfc. Manning specifically'." What Obama actually said was: "He broke the law." I'll leave it to readers to determine whether the White House’s denial is reasonable, or whether it's the actions of a President constitutionally incapable of admitting error (h/t auerfeld).

Amazingly, this incident -- as this truly excellent post documents -- is highly redolent of the time Richard Nixon publicly declared Charles Manson's guilt before the accused mass murderer had been convicted. Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, was at Nixon's side when he did it and immediately recognized the impropriety of Nixon's remarks, and the White House quickly issued a statement claiming that Nixon misspoke and meant merely to suggest Manson had been "charged" with these crimes, not that he was guilty of them. Obama's decree was worse, of course, since (a) Obama has direct command authority over those who will judge Manning (unlike Nixon vis-a-vis Manson's jurors); (b) Manson's jurors were sequestered at the time and thus not exposed to Nixon's proclamation; and (c) Obama is directly responsible for the severe punishment to which Manning has already been subjected (h/t lysias).

It is notable indeed that an act immediately recognized as grossly improper by John Mitchell -- "easily American history's crookedest Attorney General ever" -- is engaged in by our nation's top political-leader/Constitutional-scholar, and no attempt is made to rectify it until it becomes clear that the controversy could harm both Manning's prosecution and the President's political standing."

lawyer weasel-speak back pedaling

as Commander in Chief. It's a gross miscarriage of justice that has occurred and Obama has fatally tainted the jury pool and proceedings. No question about it.

the White House just retracted the statement

that's something like what the Bush Boy said, things like the right to a fair trial, and to be innocent until proven guilty, things like what's in the constitution,

that's stupid sh*t.

the Bush boy was the stupidest president ever

Obama is the phoniest president ever.

You are pretending this has any bearing on a fair trial, pretending that its somehow a verdict. You know better. But you want to pretend, because you want to continue spamming the boards with your dumb shit about Bush being stupid and Obama being phony. You probably laid awake all night thinking that one up and then gave yourself a huge fucking hi-five as you laid there in your bed, admiring your own perceived brilliance.

I don't think anyone that would pretend such bullshit has any validity and then goes around spamming the boards with such a terribly, contrived sounding bit of bland rhetoric in hopes of getting a rise should be making any judgements about someone else's phoniness. You aren't authentic enough yourself to be taken seriously on such a matter.

in the USA, habeaus corpus is dead and gone

when they can hold you indefinitely without trial

THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY

and Obama promised to do something about it and has gone in the opposite direction, just like he has on all his other major promises

that's why he's a big phony

the CIC with his primary job being to uphold the law of the land, declaring someone guilty before they are even indicted. That was just plain stupid coming from a lawyer, you always say alleged.

HOW COULD THAT NOT AFFECT THE TRIAL

Meanwhile the real criminals like bush, cheney, rummy, and all the criminal banker boys (of the largest monetary theft in human history, the 2008 collapse) that Obama appointed to his admin are all going scot free without a whisper of incrimination from the Obama "justice" department.

Manning is just a whistle blower trying to point out some of the dirty rotten sh*t in our corporatocracy oligarchy, that's why he's guilty until proven innocent, that's why he will NEVER get a fair trial. It's also a message to all the other potential whistle blowers out there.

(real nice how you're trying to make this personal, surely furthers your "argument")

Get off your fucking cross.

you have no argument

it was made up?

why would Obama retract something that was made up? LOLZ!!

QED indeed.

...it's a large part of their job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Rw4nrDHz8

Transcript...

"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.

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



OBAMA: What he did was he dumped…



OBAMA: No it wasn’t the same thing. Ellsberg’s material wasn’t classified in the same way.

This is the President of the United States speaking about a US military soldier detained for almost a year on charges of leaking classified (but not top secret, the level of files released by Ellsberg) documents..."

about the CIA position of Valerie Plame yet they have never been tried, and Obama has never gone back to really let the public know the truth about those events. If what Manning did was criminal, then what about the outing of Plame?

And was there a cover-up? If so, why wasn't the top blown off of it by Obama's prosecutors?

they were top level secret and had very very limited distribution. Ellsberg had a very high level of clearance inside the Pentagon, he was after all part of the intelligence apparatchik. Whereas Manning released far more spread documents with little in terms of security clearance. In fact I think little stuff was "top secret" vs. the stuff which Ellsberg released.

The commonality in both Ellsberg and Manning's so-called "crimes" is that they remove the plausible deniability excuse for our government. Hearing Obama say how he "can't conduct diplomacy on an open source," displays for all to see clear divide between his electoral rhetoric of "change" and "transparency," and his reality as a president. Politicians, apparently will say anything to get elected. The whole "lesser of two evils" system devised by the Dems and GOP makes sense as it helps remove the accountability for the lines of BS fed to the public as campaign slogans which will never be implemented.

and you are right that neither side want the curtain pulled back to expose what is really happening.

:(

President Obama was wrong, as far as the law and courts are concerned. Okay.

But outside the court room, to hear people defend his innocence - and at the same time applaud him for doing it?

The only possible logic to that is hey, he did it, way to go, but I want him to be found innocent of doing it.

If that is the case okay, cool, but don't bitch about a fair trial when you wish an outcome of innocence for the guilty.
It's not intellectually honest, right?
(lay off Obama!)

I was going to post the same thing you just said, you beat me to it.
I take exception to the "Obama was wrong" meme.
Since Manning lovers want to get so technical, then let us get technical.
Technically, he said Manning broke the law, he didn't say he was guilty.
there's no question that Manning did it, yet we have to go through the formality of a trial to legally tag him guilty. How about the Manning lovers quit being so sensitive and give Obama a break on this one.

Manning did or did not do. Maybe Obama has seen the evidence. I have seen some of those logs, but the source for the logs is very suspect in my opinion.

...Combatants" AND actually LOOKS at the released emails and start prosecuting the ones in the emails, THEN we will stop bringing up the things that Campaign Obama said he would do and hasn't done yet.

And WHERE does it say that there is no question that Manning did it? I pray that some day you will stand trial with such a justice system that Manning has, you will get it, then.

By the way, do you get paid by the post or just hourly?

who actually knows what the hell they're talking about.

It is indeed command influence, and there is an entire body of appellate decisions dealing with it.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/mcm.pdf

I don't really think you have much chance with that argument

The links to the specific passages she's referring to have been provided on this thread and others. If you've got something other than the entire UCMJ manual on courts martials, please give us something specific. Honestly, I really want to know.

If you open the pdf and search for "command influence" you can land on the rule in two or three clicks. I found the rule, and read it, without much difficulty -- and now you should be able to do that too

The question is whether he receives a fair trial, an opportunity to face his accusers and to present any evidence he may have that places doubt on his guilt or that should cause court to mitigate any punishment that may be imposed.

Our Constitution guarantees certain basic rights even for an accused person against whom the evidence is very strong. Those rights among others are what define our country as a nation of laws.

Even if Manning admitted that he did the things he is a accused of doing, he might still be able to argue a defense.

Many people thought that OJ would be convicted. The standard of proof was beyond reasonable doubt.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubte pro

And the jury determined that the prosecution did not meet that standard of proof.

We cannot predict with certainty what a judge and jury, even in a military tribunal, might decide in the Manning case. We just do not know all of the facts.

Obama may know them. But if he does, he should not reveal what he knows.

Sometimes a lawyer goes to a courtroom thinking he will win the case -- but he loses. Sometimes the lawyer goes into the courtroom thinking he can't possibly win for some reason. Usually if he doesn't think he will win, he tries to find an alternative to a trial. But sometimes, miraculously, when he expects to lose, he does not. It's not something you can predict.

I wonder whether Obama ever actually went into a courtroom to argue anything. I haven't heard anything about that. Does anyone know?

Rather than this crap.

Instead, you'll just express a vague wish that people wouldn't point these things out?

:(

"Manson guilty, Nixon declares."

I'd like to read some of his papers. Anyone know where I can find evidence of this "Constitutional Scholar"

When he compared the Federal Mandate to purchase health insurance (after the single payer advocates were *fucking arrested*) to the State requirements to purchase auto insurance I had a feeling that he wasn't quite the Constitutional Scholar he was made out to be. But I could be wrong. So I'd like to read some position papers. They must be out there. Where?



one angry fucking donkey

they just let us believe we still have a democracy.

other Democratic Senators have said the same thing.. Like our MN Sen Amy Klobuchar.

So many Veterans support Bradley Manning and his right to a fair trial and fair treatment. Any 2012 candidates for Pres. and Senate are going to find out when many Veterans refuse to donate to their campaigns, give their support in party elections and caucus.

Like, the military is just detaining him for FUN! Thats what you, the general public and the media thought up until now, right?!

We know Manning released classified documents unauthorized. We know it before there has been a trial. Just like we knew Libby outed Valerie Plame before his trial.

On top of that, everyone KNOWS the administration and the military are pretty certain of this guy's guilt as well. This was known before President Obama spoke a word about it. There is no secret there. You can't taint a jury or a case with information that ALL of the people who will be involved in judgement undoubtedly and unavoidably, all ready know.

This argument is silly and falls flat on its face when you look into the validity of it.

that if the info that Manning dumped is legit whistle blower stuff on illegal activity

that's probably why they are delaying the trial

that's certainly why the detainees at Gitmo aren't ever going to see the light of day, it would expose too much rotten filthy sh*t of the MIMC.

That should have been your response, then it would have been valid.

:eyes:

Seriously though, so now what? Do you think they should just open the door at the JRCF? Whoopsie doodle!

Try holding him without torture

Try giving him a trial without all this bullsh*t delay.

You don't have any actual request or idea of how to proceed? You just wanted to stomp your feet for a while? Got it.

was only 2 short lines, too bad you can't be bothered to read.

Your post was a pathetic bullsh*t strawman, no one said he needed to go free.

Just end the solitary confinement, which is definitely torture, and give him a fair trial. Not a bullsh*t one year delay while you wait for the torture to ruin him.

I find it really really pathetic that people support the erosion of democratic rights that started under the bush boy and have not gotten any better under Obama.

Think about it - if this is such a slam-dunk case why has it taken so long to get to trial?

Even if, and I emphasize IF, Manning did release everything they say, what about the whistleblower law which could protect his revealing of crimes?

The only thing he as admitted to releasing was the murder of the journalists. Very embarassing, and clearly protected by the whistlebloqwer law. Suppose someone wanted to "get him" for that, and so THEY released the State email memos, then blamed him so he cold be charged with something that the whistleblower law would not cover. Wouldn't that wind up looking a LOT like what's happening?

You think the military incapable of something like that?

If they had incontrovertible evidence against Manning, he'd have gone to trial months ago. He didn't, therefore, they do not have that incontrovertible proof. If they don't have it, then the Prez is dead wrong is proclaiming his guilt.

GOOD POST!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama is the most phony president ever.

Odd how he becomes a Constitutional Dunce when protecting the interests of the mega-wealthy and the secrecy of their government fraud schemes.

I wasn't sure. Seriously...I'm not snarking you. I just didn't get your post.

The major issue as it applies to Manning is the difference in treatment between himself and others accused under the UCMJ.

:sarcasm:

How can anybody condone Obama for those comments? He should be better than this. Isn't a person suppose to be innocent before being proven guilty? Those were some poorly chosen words on Obama's part.



John

workings of a fascist mind. Just a slip o' the tongue to a psychiatrist is an unvarnished facet with the most revealing reflections.

And I reflect back on the Obama who told us that he saw no reason to impeach Bush!!

Obama once at least was a sub-teacher of Constitutional law!!

Wow!!

Pity the students -- and pity us!!

don't condone it. I'm beginning to belive the Obama Republicans weren't a myth after all, some of the shit that gets justified blows my mind.

There are very few meanings one can take away from this fact. Particularly when you see the outcomes of B0's policies and who they overwhelmingly benefit where financial interests are concerned.

And any logical conclusion tells you it is not a far fetch to come to the conclusion: Our "democratic" leaders equate to a flim flam being played on Democrats; many of whom are meekly falling in line with pug propaganda and talking points and that is evident, in varying degrees, on this site.

master of chess he is. too bad he's not playing on our side.

Obama's pronouncement has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Manning will be convicted.

more useless drivel...

whatever you say...

other than Scooter Libby had unintentionally outed Plame before Libby did, therefore there was no crime because Scooter Libby wasn't really the first to out her. The information was already known.

We know that much of the information that Manning allegedly released was already known somewhere in the world. To my knowledge he is alleged to have disclosed diplomatic briefings that were widespread. If it turns out that someone else had already disclosed the material or the facts in those documents, theoretically, he could be also be somehow exonerated.

Obviously, I pulled that theory out of a hat. I have no evidence one way or the other and I don't have any inside information as to whether that is really why the Plame matter was not pursued further. In fact, I doubt it.

The point is that any sort of legal theory could prove to be true at a trial or in the pre-trial phase, so nobody, especially not Obama should assume that Manning is guilty. He may even have "confessed" and still will not be found guilty for some reason. Most cases end in plea bargains. We shall see.

Obama sometimes does not think or act like a lawyer, but then we all do and say impulsive things. I write lots of impulsive stuff on DU, some of it pure hogwash and some of it poorly spelled and full of grammatical errors. That's because I am human. So is Manning.

So is Obama. It's just that it is a little easier for Obama to lose sight of the limits that his humanity place upon him.

Very few in Obama's entourage remind him that he is fallible. Just about everybody around you are me reminds us that we are prone to error and failings.

Is that Manning released evidence of government criminal wrong doing

In this case he would also be innocent, and in fact would be guilty if he did not release the evidence.

I think that's the real story. They are holding him in naked solitary confinement until he becomes so loony tunes he won't be able to defend himself in court.

Manning released evidence of government criminal wrong doing

In this case he would also be innocent, and in fact would be guilty if he did not release the evidence.


Umm... no. Where did you get that idea?

to hide war crimes

Isn't it? If it isn't it should be.

If he knew that the chain of command could not be trusted to follow up his report, the only option was to put it out to the public.

Not reporting a crime he was aware of makes him complicit in covering up the crime - and that is itself a crime. Revealing the crime is covered, and protected, by the whistleblower's law.

Though since we don't know exactly which files he is accused of leaking, I suppose it's conjecture all around.

journalists in Iraq.

AFTER he was arrested, they charged him with the leak of the embassy emails. While he has equivocated on the Iraq tape, he has consistently denied releasing giving the embassy emails to Wikileaks and, IIRC, Wikileaks has denied that he was the source while, of course, not admitting who was.

Quite coincidentally, he would be protected by the whistleblower law for what he was originally charged with - then they amazingly came up with something that is not covered by that law.

Have you noticed that EVERYBODY talks about the embassy emails, but NOBODY talks about what he was originally charged with?

IMO, the embassy files was a deliberate leak by the military meant to give them something they could hit both Manning and Wikileaks with.

But of course, that is also just conjecture.

defend himself in court.

There are no legal or Constitutional restraints enforced here as it applies to the executive branch anymore.

this president said we need to 'look forward' when asked about the crimes of the past administration.

:grr:

"They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority."

-G. Massey, Egyptologist

technically he hasn't broken any laws when he pronounced his opinion in this matter.

My biggest concern is not Obama's pronunciation in this affair, after all presidents have a history of siding with the prosecution or any of the branches of government being involved in any legal matter. Governments, like most other social/economic and religious institutions are concerned first and foremost about their preservation/survival even if it goes in detriment of their supposed raison d'etre.

My issue with this administration is their lack of consistency; when it comes to the previous (and some members of the current) administration, they have expressed their willingness to "look forwards" and leave some very serious constitutional transgressions and right out crimes against humanity to go not only unpunished but completely uninvestigated (sic). Whereas, a supposed whistleblower gets to experience the full weight of the law. When Mr. Obama himself campaigned on a platform of "transparency." That makes me think that Mr. Obama in this matter, and in others apparently, was full of shit and now we're seeing his true colors.

The scariest part is seeing some supposed Democrats justify anything their government does, right or wrong, fueled by what it seems is the same level of logical dissonance as the Bush acolytes did during those long 8 years. The more things change...

ANOTHER DAMN GOOD POST ON THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Manning released evidence of crimes committed by the military during the bush boy presidency

Obama has consistently shown that not only is he not going to pursue any prosecution of bush but in this case he is going to cover up incriminating evidence of bush crimes.

""Whereas, a supposed whistleblower gets to experience the full weight of the law.""

and a very biased interpretation of that law

""That makes me think that Mr. Obama in this matter, and in others apparently, was full of shit and now we're seeing his true colors.""

Could agree with you more, Obama is a complete and utter phony. He's an award winning Madison avenue production, his real actions are the exact opposite of his broadcasted image.

Just entirely different masks........never mind.

Once you do, responsibilities attach.

you get a fair trial? Isn't this how Dr Sam Sheppherd got a retrial because the judge said he was guilty pre-trial? (The Fugitive)

THATS what I don't undersand! :-(

How about, "because he appears to have disclosed a metric assload of classified documents to unauthorized personnel"?

speeches ...I thought he wanted all of the Bush Lies and what we've done as Imperial America...would be exposed if we elected him! That's what I heard from Obama's Campaign.

journalists by the jocular crew of an apache helicopter on a joy ride ruthlessly killing for fun as if they were in a shooting arcade.

The video that horrified the world, handed over to journalists by Julian Assange. It was perhaps the most important revelation of the info (allegedly) "Illicitly" handed over to the press by a wistleblower now being tortured on orders sanction by our kind hearted leader.

And then it's up to the judiciary to determine if that's true or not.

to destroy "Constitution and Bill of Rights" that govern America...BACK in to a Legal Framework that would have DEFIED BUSH II and the people he put in power.

But...when Presiden Obama does the SAME THING...and CONTINUES BUSH...we are told "BACK OFF!" he'd doing the best he can for Democratic Party and now that he's running for a Second Term...JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!

That's a pretty hard blow for Dems who've been around for over 30 years and more. It makes us seem like wimps and idiots who keep voting for Dems who seem like Repugs...over and over and over and over and ...WHEN DOES IT END? :shrug:

When?

:hurts:

and take back the senate and congress sans bluedogs; who are a big part of the flim flam being played on democrats and the people of this country. The brave folks of Wisconsin are proving this by aggressively pushing back at the tyranny and we must follow their lead.

You will upset the faithful if you make them think.

Even military gets a trial or do we just not give two shits anymore?