The Obama admin/military accused Manning of "breaking the law",.. on July 5th, 2010.

[phleshdef]

Wikipedia for convenience:

Manning was arrested on May 26, 2010, and held at first in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.<27> He was charged on July 5 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system in connection with the leaking of a video of a helicopter attack in Iraq in 2007," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source and disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States," between November 19, 2009, and May 27, 2010.<28> He was also one of those named in the Twitter subpoena later in December, when the U.S. government tried to obtain access to the Twitter accounts of several of those involved.<29>

If you have a problem with the harshness the military might use to treat its prisoners, fine. If you think military whistleblower laws should be extended to protect people like Manning, who indiscriminately dump classified info to foreign organizations, fine, you can have it.

But lets be clear on something. You can't logically claim that a President whos administration is THE ONE CHARGING SOMEONE WITH THE CRIMES THEY ARE ACCUSED OF TO BEGIN WITH is somehow tainting a case when said President says this person "broke the law". Thats not passing a sentence. Its not tainting a verdict. Its not swaying any juries. ITS NOT EXPRESSING ANY ASPECT OF THE WHITEHOUSE'S OPINION ON THIS THAT EVERYONE, YOU, ME, ANYONE ELSE PAYING ATTENTION DIDN'T ALREADY 100% KNOW.

If they didn't clearly believe he broke the law, none of this would be happening to him right now. They already claimed that he broke the law when they themselves leveled charges against him for breaking the law. WHAT DO YOU THINK "CHARGES" MEANS?

We aren't going to get anywhere until we shut down this little "mountain from molehills" factory we have running.

[Ramulux]

1. Where is the evidence?

The entire situation with Adrian Lamo is so suspect. The guy is a lying scumbag and I dont trust anything he has to say especially considering the fact that he constantly revised his story when discrepancies were noted.

Bradley Manning has not broken any laws. Thats a fact. Nothing has been proven. Obama claiming that he "broke the law" is an empirically false statement. I dont get what you are complaining about.

[phleshdef]

2. Where is your evidence that anyone lied? Talk about throwing stones at glass houses.

I just wonder what your excuse will be when the trial does happen and Manning is proven guilty of dropping classified information beyond a shadow of a doubt. This place will be fun when that happens. Regardless my argument has nothing to do with whether Manning did it or didn't do it really.

My complaint is with the absolute absurdity in suggesting that the President dropped some bomb by saying Manning broke the law. We knew he and his administration thought Manning was the leaker the day they CHARGED him with doing it. Thats what a charge is.

[cali]

3. huh? I don't see how it's a fact that he's not broken any laws

It's not a fact that he has either. that's to be determined.

[Historic NY]

25. charges & specifications UCMJ......its military law & his trial is courts martial.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2010/07/manning070510.pdf

People are running around thinking he is having a civilian trial. Who's muddying the waters??? For the record not one of the 22 charges mentions Wikileaks either. Wikileaks isn't the subject of his courts martial either.

[riderinthestorm]

38. I don't think anyone's confused. But since Obama is CIC, hasn't he muddied the waters for Manning

and his upcoming military trial? His CIC role as Manning's superior officer, and the superior officer of every person on Manning's jury plus the superior officer of the judge! would appear to be problematic with Obama already proclaiming him guilty.

[Historic NY]

60. Really no more than the defense attorney or prosecutor....perhaps a gag order should be in place.

[Wilms]

4. Try this...

Moreover, public pretrial statements by prosecutors violate the ethical standards set forth by
the American Bar Association relating to a fair trial and free press. Standard 8-1.1 states, “A
lawyer should not make or authorize the making of an extrajudicial statement a reasonable
person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a
criminal proceeding.” These standards have been incorporated in some form in each state’s
ethical rules, but are nevertheless frequently disregarded and infrequently enforced.

snip

In distinguishing Gentile, the Gansler court stated that “a criminal defense attorney may
announce an opinion that his or her client is innocent with a lesser risk of causing prejudice
because the law, itself, presumes the defendant’s innocence.” The court went on to say that
“a prosecutor’s opinion of guilt is much more likely to create prejudice, given that his or her
words carry the authority of the government and are especially persuasive in the public’s eye.”
Gansler ended up receiving a public reprimand. The defendants – a tainted jury pool.

It's a pdf... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.mobar.org%2Fssf2009-course-materials%2Fpdfs%2Fhigh_profile_cases_prosecutors_pretrial_comments_preserving_fair_trials_passanise.pdf&rct=j&q=prosecutor%20statements%20public%20%22fair%20trial%22&ei=KNSzTdD_PKeC0QHSmMWlCQ&usg=AFQjCNH5i5-WGBoOP_XnEL8zalcm9ENOFg&cad=rja

:shrug:

[phleshdef]

6. Utterly irrelevant to this situation in every single way.

Obama isn't a prosecutor. The office of the Presidency isn't subject to the standards of the ABA. Thats for lawyers.

Furthermore, a prosecutor's job is to prosecute, whether they believe guilt or not.

In this case, the Obama administration blatantly accused Manning of being guilty when they themselves leveled the charges against him and detained him as a security threat. My point stands. They can't possibly be accused of tainting a case with the President's statement because the President's view was undeniably common knowledge when the administration and military initially started this process, period.

[Wilms]

10. You may benefit from re-reading what I posted.

Seems you like having things both ways. You commented that the President's "administration is THE ONE CHARGING SOMEONE WITH THE CRIMES THEY ARE ACCUSED OF TO BEGIN WITH".

Now you argue, "Obama isn't a prosecutor".


But thanks for sparing me the all-caps.

[BzaDem]

11. That isn't a contradiction at all. The Obama administration is indeed charging Manning, and yet

Obama is simultaneously not a prosecutor. This is not complicated.

[Wilms]

12. I didn't argue that the President can't acknowledge a "charge".

Saying the guy is guilty is up to a jury to determine. The link I provided upthread argues as much.

[phleshdef]

14. There is no difference than charging someone with breaking the law and saying it. None.

He didn't declare any verdicts or order any verdicts declared. It will be up to due process to decide. That hasn't changed. He will be tried by the military as planned. And no one making the judging decision had any doubts what the admins position was on guilt prior to this statement.

[Wilms]

18. I didn't claim there's a difference between "charging someone with breaking the law and saying it".

And it isn't what you argued in the OP. There you claimed saying the guy is guilty is OK. The link I posted begs to differ.

If Obama said, 'Manning has been charged', there wouldn't have been an outcry.

Perhaps you have a link to support your position. Otherwise, keep up the fail.

[BzaDem]

20. LOL -- after your total fail with your completely inapplicable link, you are now blaming him for not

providing a link.

:rofl:

Newsflash: If you want to say that Obama cannot say X, it is your responsibility to prove it. In the United States with our first amendment, the rule is not "you cannot say anything unless you have a case that proves that you can."

[Wilms]

28. How is a link about about poisoning the jury pool inapplicable?

:shrug:

[phleshdef]

13. Complaining about caps isn't helping you divert attention away from your invalid argument.

Barack Obama is not and will not be a prosecuting attorney in the case against Bradley Manning.

His administration is responsible for accusing Manning to begin with.

Thats not "having it both ways". Thats just having it, the way that it is.

[Wilms]

16. My point about your screaming was made after a bit of substance I thought you might consider.

I see you are making the point now that his the "administration is responsible for accusing Manning".

That's fine. Saying he's guilty, pre-trial, outside of court, in the public sphere, where it could damage the defendants right to a fair trial, is another matter. That's what the link I posted explains. And that's what the discussion is about.

[BzaDem]

17. The link you posted only explains why the actual prosecutor in the given case should refrain from

commenting. Its reasons and its holding are specifically applicable to a prosecuting attorney of the specific case. Obama is not a prosecutor at all (let alone the prosecutor of Manning's case). Your case is irrelevant.

[Wilms]

19. Perhaps. But we do have the OP arguing otherwise.

It claims it's OK for the President to say the guy is guilty because it's his prosecutor making the charge. Sure sounds like trying to have it both ways.

Beyond that, and if your argument is to hold, the President is shitting on the quaint notion called "presumed innocent until found guilty".

You're all self-painted into a corner.

[BzaDem]

21. The OP is not arguing otherwise.

It is OK for the President to say he is guilty, because it is his prosecutor (actually the United States) making the charge. This doesn't contradict your link at all, because Obama is not his prosecutor.

[Wilms]

29. That it is Obama's prosecutor is precisely the among arguments the OPer is making.

Check the thread.

[phleshdef]

31. Thread checked, You are still wrong.

[Wilms]

39. Perhaps you missed the OP which you posted.

Qoute:

"...the Obama administration blatantly accused Manning of being guilty when they themselves leveled the charges against him..."

[phleshdef]

54. Um, yea. Still wrong.

[NavyDem]

5. Wait...

So if I said something like "You stole my car", I would be charging you, and you would have your day in court to refute the charge? Just like PFC Manning has?

Here is what I envision: Forensic evidence will either aquit or convict PFC manning of the charges. My opinion based on how the how the charges are written, is that there will be evidence for many of the charges but not necessarily all of them.

[phleshdef]

7. Its more like, you press charges against me for stealing your car...

...and then when asked about it, you say "I pressed charges because he stole my car!", which would be perfectly fine.

[NavyDem]

8. And then...

In court, I would have to prove my charge. Just like the Government has to do? Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

[phleshdef]

9. I don't know. I'm totally lost at this point.

Nonsense overload or something.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[shellgame26]

61. Don't try to use logic

that seems to cause the op to short circuit. Lol

[NavyDem]

62. I think you've confused me

with someone that disagrees with the OP. I don't.

[Smarmie Doofus]

22. Damage control?. Lotsa luck. nt

[hobbit709]

23. Whether he broke the law or not is up to a court to decide.

But what laws are being broken in the conditions and treatment of him while in custody.

[mmonk]

24. I hope to learn a lot Monday night.

I'm planning to attend a conference that involves David House, Marcy Wheeler, and ret. Col. Ann Wright on the subject of Manning.

[bread_and_roses]

26. You said it yourself: he "CLAIMED he broke the law." Obama does not determine guilt

Had he said Manning "is charged with" breaking the law, there would be no issue, now would there? Only the court determines guilt.

But then, being "charged with" breaking the law does not justify inhumane treatment, now does it? Nor, for that matter, does being judged guilty in a proper court of law.

But then, our "Constitutional Scholar" President has shown a remarkable ability to ignore the Constitution when it suits our Corporate Overlords and their Military Minions.

edit for misplaced "the" and quote mark

[phleshdef]

34. There is no fucking difference either way.

You are imagining a difference that isn't there.

It doesn't matter how President Obama stated it. A charge IS an accusation.

[bread_and_roses]

41. Yes, an accusation. NOT a determination of guilt

The issue is that Obama evidently said he "broke the law" - as if that had already been judged.

[phleshdef]

49. No. Its not "as if that had already been judged". That would be Obama giving him a trial right there

...on the spot, which isn't even legally possible. Your argument is just silly nonsense.

[shellgame26]

55. YOU are the one suggesting that

nice way to deflect.

[shellgame26]

44. Thank you!

WTF is wrong with people???

[mmonk]

27. The issue is how Manning is treated vs other accused persons under the

UCMJ.

[phleshdef]

33. Thats not the issue of my thread.

Reread my OP. Thats the issue here.

[mmonk]

35. I don't see how the separation is possible.

Either you have laws and procedures to follow and those things are determined by and at trial or you don't. Your op is about the cic declaring the guilt of an accused before the trial and with the issue of treatment as the backdrop.

[phleshdef]

48. No, this would be an issue regardless of how Manning has been treated.

And there are laws and procedures to follow. None of them include banning the President from verbalizing the same charges his administration already made.

[EFerrari]

30. You are conflating the President's opinion

with the working of the military justice system -- a system put into place precisely so defendents wouldn't be at the mercy of their officers' opinion. Fail.

[phleshdef]

32. You aren't making any sense. You are just trying to find a way to say "fail".

You didn't have an actual, sensible point to make at all, so you made something up that doesn't fit at all with my OP. It shows when you try to talk shit on the cheap like that.

You don't GET to declare "fail" when you can't make a worthy point yourself. You haven't.

[EFerrari]

36. 837. ARTICLE 37. Unlawfully influencing action of court

http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-7-trial-procedure/837-article-37-unlawfully-influencing-action-of-court

[riderinthestorm]

37. I'm kicking precisely for your link EFerrari. This is what confuses me. Since Obama is CIC

his proclamation of Manning's guilt seems to indicate that he's created some problems for Manning's court martial.

But I've already been told this will be "laughed out of the courts" by at least one DU poster as though this point is utterly ridiculous.

So we have one DU lawyer who thinks this is ridiculous. I'd love for more to weigh in on what the implications are for Manning in light of Obama's statement.

[phleshdef]

52. Yea, I told you it would be laughed right of the courts and I'm still laughing at how absurd your...

...argument is.

You know what the fucking implications are. Stop it with the damn act. You aren't fooling anyone.

You can't claim that there was any further influence placed on this case by the President's statement. None. The claim is just foolish on its face.

I'll say it again. This administration accused Manning of breaking the law when they charged him. There is no question about it. Any judge, jury or anyone else involved in the final judgement on this case will have known the President's feelings on it based simply on the fact that his administration charged him. You can't claim some kind of unlawful influence when there is no possible way the statement could have indicated an opinion that was not already clearly known.

Your argument here is irrelevant to any serious legal arguments on the subject. It has no value.

[Kalun D]

64. Here's Where Your Argument Falls Apart

Here's where you are arguing for anything but democracy

The administration accused Manning

that means they THINK he broke the law

now they have to PROVE he broke the law

Obama declared that he KNEW he broke the law

One of the pillars of democracy is the presumption of innocence. It's not professional for a lawyer to declare someone guilty until it's proven in trial, that's something left for idiots like Nancy Grace.

If there is nothing wrong with what Obama did, why did he make the fastest retraction of his presidential term?

[Recovered Repug]

40. Just out of curiosity,

could you highlite the specific part of Artical 837 that you think Obama violated?

[riderinthestorm]

42. I won't speak for EFerrari, but for me it's right in section a

(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 exercise of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceeding. NO PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER MAY ATTEMPT TO COERCE OR, BY ANY UNAUTHORITZED 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.


Bold capitals are mine to emphasize the most important parts.

It seems to me that the chief commanding officer of the military has just declared that Manning is guilty. That would seem to me to be interfering in the court martial, exerting pretty persuasive influence on his subordinates.

[NavyDem]

45. Ok.

So how has the court martial jury been coerced? Or, how has the President censured, reprimanded or otherwise admonished the court members or military judge?

[riderinthestorm]

47. If your commanding officer has already pronounced guilt

how are the subordinate officers supposed to come to a fair conclusion? The judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys, hell even the jury are all subordinate officers of the CIC.

:shrug: Obama's already stated for all of his subordinates that Manning is a treasonous traitor in his opinion. I'm not sure how that isn't prejudicial for fairness.

[NavyDem]

53. Did the President

Threaten the judge, jury, prosecutors, or defense attorney if they didn't convict? Holding the opinion that someone is guilty is not the same as coercion, or undue influence.

[riderinthestorm]

56. No, he did not threaten at all. But articulating his guilty judgement

could be interpreted (and has been in the past in other courts AFAIK) as coercive.

Do you think a fair trial with a jury of his peers is possible, now that his peers know their CIC believes Manning is a treasonous traitor? Do you think the judge can remain impartial now that he also knows his CIC believes Manning is a treasonous traitor?

[NavyDem]

57. I think

That the prosecution will provide evidence to back their charges, and his jury will determine guilt or innocence based upon the facts presented. I don't recall seeing treason as one of the charges, and the President merely said "he broke the law". This does not meet the definition of coercion:

"the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion —see also DEFENSE, DURESS —compare UNDUE INFLUENCE" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

[Recovered Repug]

46. Except there are a couple of items that need to be considered.

(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 exercise of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceeding.

This part doesn't seem to apply since no trial has take place, yet.


NO PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER MAY ATTEMPT TO COERCE OR, BY ANY UNAUTHORITZED 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.

This part seems to apply if it weren't for the "No person subject to this chapter" restriction. I can not find the office of President of the United States listed as a person "subject to this chapter".

http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter

[riderinthestorm]

50. I really appreciate this. I really am trying to figure this out so any feedback is great.

(even the snark I don't care about, I just want answers).

Anyway on to your post....

... as I see it, he has prejudiced the court by making this statement pre-trial. You are right, parsing the actual letter of the law appears to let him off the hook. But the spirit of the law appears pretty clear: don't mess up a person's right to a fair court martial.

Secondly, I believe section c, para 4 would probably qualify: (a person who)...
(4) performed military duties: is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

That may be wrong but I'd love a debate about that from legal eagles who might know.

[Recovered Repug]

58. I believe that Obama has not violated the letter or the spirit

of the law. The letter of the law has been posted previously. IMHO, to believe that Obama's statement has that much weight carries the implications that: 1) The potential jurors know of it - may or may not be the case. 2) The potential jurors will remember it when the trial occurs - less likely, imho. 3) The potential jurors are automatons and incapable of forming conclusions based on the facts presented. In the 8 years that I spent in uniform (spanning Reagan, Bush and Clinton), I was never overly concerned about what any of their opinions were unless it was about my possible deployment. I don't think much has changed since I got out.

[phleshdef]

51. Which is exactly the argument my OP banished into oblivion.

You can't make that argument. Its not valid. You can't claim that the President is influencing any decision unlawfully when his administration made the charges to begin with. He isn't telling the court anything they won't already know. Its clear that he thinks Manning broke the law and that was clear the moment they charged him. Claims that this constitutes as "unlawful influence of the court" would have you laughed right out and serious legal discussion, and deservedly so.

[EFerrari]

59. As I said earlier, you are conflating the normal operation of the courts

with a CIC giving his gratuitous opinion in public.

Officers of the court and interested parties don't talk about active cases outside the courtroom. They can be cited for contempt. Of course, no one is going to cite Obama and the onus is on him to act like a professional if at all possible.

[ReggieVeggie]

43. how droll

must be nice living on that pedestal

[Kalun D]

63. OP SUPER FAILS

because the White House has retracted the statement.

Why did they immediately retract the statement when confronted if it wasn't the wrong thing to do?