On Bradley Manning’s Guilt, Who Will Be Barack Obama’s John Mitchell?

[Bluebear]

Immediately upon reading Michael Whitney’s post about President Barack Obama’s statement to Logan Price about Bradley — “we are a nation of laws…. he broke the law!” — I was reminded of Richard Nixon’s statement about Charles Manson in the midst of his trial:

“Here was a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.”

What I didn’t recall from that time was that John Mitchell, easily American history’s crookedest Attorney General ever, was at Nixon’s side when he made that statement in Denver. He recognized right away that there was a serious problem with Nixon’s statement:

“This has got to be clarified,” he told Presidential Aide John Ehrlichman immediately afterward.

Even in an era of news moving only as fast as the wire services, reporters rushed to telephones and the story moved. In half an hour, White House press secretary Ron Ziegler appeared before reporters:

After some minutes of verbal fencing, Ziegler agreed that Nixon’s words about Manson should be retracted. When Ziegler told Nixon what had happened, the President was surprised: “I said ‘charged,’ ” he replied.

Which, of course, Nixon had not said. And, as in Obama’s case, there was video....

http://my.firedoglake.com/teddysanfran/2011/04/22/on-bradley-manning-who-will-be-barack-obamas-john-mitchell/

[xchrom]

1. we are not a nation of laws -- and i wish we'd just stop claiming we are.

we're nation of applying the law here and there.

[Bluebear]

3. You said it.

[Solly Mack]

9. Yep

[Bluebear]

10. .

[izquierdista]

2. So even John Mitchell could realize

what Mr. Harvard Law Review failed to. How did this bumblefuck end up at the top of the Democratic heap in 2008? Oh yes, it was with the help of Goldman $ach$.

[Moondog]

4. Rhetorical question, right?

This is hardly the first example . . . .

[riderinthestorm]

5. I asked this on the other thread, as has sabrina with no response. How can the CIC pronounce guilt

pronounce to the whole world that Manning is guilty and then expect a fair trial? Manning still serves under that same CIC and a military trial comprised of his peers, (who also serve under the same CIC who just pronounced him guilty), are somehow not going to know this or have any kind of persuasive influence?

I'm baffled how the CIC hasn't just fucked up this guy's right to a fair trial?

I'll also go further, how is it that Manning, who has just been proclaimed a treasonous traitor to the troops by their CIC, is going to be "safe" now that he's been moved to a medium security facility?

I'm glad you brought this up as it's own OP bluebear. I was afraid it would get buried (as my question obviously has) on the other thread that's getting pretty long.

[Bluebear]

6. If Charles Manson deserved a fair trial, certainly Bradley Manning does...

...without a Constitutional Law Scholar President proclaiming his guilt all over the airwaves.

[phleshdef]

8. He didn't pronounce guilt in any legal sense. His admin charged Manning to begin with.

You can't say that the same people that leveled the charges to begin with are somehow tainting something when those same people verbally express that they think this person is guilty of exactly what they are charging him for. Your argument just doesn't make any damn sense.

[Bluebear]

7. .