It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama on Manning: "He broke the law.."

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Agreed, Manning will be boxed up for the rest of his life.
I think in 10 years or so enough people will have forgotten and he will become a non issue though.
What Manning did was a crime but even more than criminal it was true patriotism.
As for Julian, i see nothing wrong with what he did.
He is not an American citizen, so it's not considered treason.
In fact for Julian that is patriotism, warning the world and foremost, his country of a true threat.




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I have had this debate before, and though charges under UCMJ have been filed, he hasn't been identified as committing a crime. Committing a crime then having charges placed against you is one thing, but simply being charged with no specific crime being labeled, is a sure sign of cover up.

He simply brought to light the atrocities that the USG has par taking in. And that, is unacceptable in their eyes.

But he will be locked up for the rest of his natural born life..



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by sepermeru
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Your neighbor couldn't threaten to do that even if you had murdered someone, you know. I don't like the insurance mandate either, but that analogy is flawed.


You seem to have misread by post. What I said is that if you write me a letter saying I've got to to buy the insurance program you have or I will be kidnapped and caged, then you'd be a criminal guilty of extortion. Obama will absolutely have a letter written to you (he doesn't actually do anything himself but merely tells other people what to do) saying you've got to buy his insurance program or you will be kidnapped and caged. That makes Obama a criminal. My point was that its Obama who is the real criminal, not Manning.
edit on 26-4-2011 by civilchallenger because: missing words


I understand your point, I just don't think you're making it well. The problem is that there is no situation under which your neighbor could ever do that, even if you deserved it. Saying that sending a letter like that would be criminal because it's extorting you to buy something is false -- it would be illegal no matter what. There are many circumstances under which the government can legally do things your neighbor can't. When the government abuses that power, that's very bad, I agree completely -- but it's a different kind of crime.

Your neighbor kidnapping you is just malicious and crazy. The government kidnapping you is corrupt. Different kind of crime, so it needs a different analogy. A better one would be if you asked your neighbor to pick up your mail while you were on vacation, and they stole some checks out of it, then used their friendship with the local sheriff to get you arrested somehow instead. It fits better because in the first example, you haven't explicitly agreed to trust your neighbor when he betrays you, whereas you have trusted the government with certain access to you in return for a promise of good behavior.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
does it in the US even matter if he broke a law? In Guantanamo there dozens of people not even guilty captured and tortured by the US. The US government does not care about human rights, so why should they care about laws? The President of the US doesn't have any judiciary power, does he? In a democratic country judiciary, legislature, executive is usually separated.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


We don't live in a totalitarian military dictatorship. In our country, the presumption of innocence is foundational to our liberty.

I'm sure what you meant to say was "He has been accused of breaking the law, but has not been tried or found guilty of any wrongdoing at this time."
edit on 26-4-2011 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


oh presumption of innocence eh like how people were the judges and jurors and executioners of bush and cheney and rumsfeld.

what a double standard.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Fenrin
 


Wow. You may have just set a record for the most clueless, pointless, non-sequitur filled post EVER on this site.


does it in the US even matter if he broke a law?


Yes, yes it does. Very much so.


In Guantanamo there dozens of people not even guilty captured and tortured by the US. The US government does not care about human rights, so why should they care about laws?


And this bears on the topic, how? Foreign nationals captured in the field of combat and held in a prison are relative to this discussion in what way? Trollery is trollery.


The President of the US doesn't have any judiciary power, does he? In a democratic country judiciary, legislature, executive is usually separated.


Are you seriously asking? There's so much confusion wrapped up in that statement that it would take days to straighten out. Even if I had the time, I'm sure you don't have the intention to read it. Your agenda is showing.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Based on a presumption that commandeering information which is patently "For Official Use Only" (at the very least) and without authorization releasing that information to a third party non-national; he is guilty of having superseded his authority and violated restrictions on the handling of classified information.

Of course, this is not a LAW he broke, but a policy he either a; disregarded, or b; violated.

Many thrill to rail out "traitor" and "theft," but if such accusations were so simple to prove many MANY senior officers would be charged for taking classified material and walking around with it (never mind political appointees and contractors who do the same.) And then there are all the unnamed 'government' sources that our media claims are the providers of much of their information.

Presumably, President Obama, as a BAR member and officer of the court knows that there is a policy proscribing legal commentary on cases under investigation and or litigation.... but he seems to have forgone that restriction.... why would he do that? It is unwise unless the disposition of the case is already scripted.

Manning's case will be tried and reviewed by military tribunal. I suspect he will be stripped of rank, dishonorably discharged and released with time served. To do otherwise invites the spotlight martyrdom when the government has used up all its currency of trust in matters regarding the ever-elusive 'transparency' we were promised (by all of them... since forever.) Allowing him to languish in a cell is hurting both the prosecution, and the country. After all, they may not like it, but a speedy and fair trial is what these people like to pretend America is all about. And military justices is no less intent on appearing so.

But then, there's always the possibility of the intent for revenge... which has nothing to do with justice.
edit on 26-4-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Bush and Cheney were executed? Why wasn't I informed?

Look -- you can play semantic games all you like, but I side with the constitution and the bill of rights, and not with the Stormtroopers of death.

I voted for Bush, BTW.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


a lot of people think they should be just read some of the threads here.

its not semantics when someone takes things that dont belong to them that is theft and whats those words?

breaking the law.

i go to your home and take things that belong to you without your permission that is theft.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


It's supposition until you are caught, tried by a jury of your peers and convicted under our system of law.

Again -- I don't care what is "commonly said here." This place, like Facebook, yahoo and every other Internet website with user created content (and many of the rest with professional content) is full of mindless gibberish written by those with a functional IQ of 80 or below. It doesn't make it "true," and it has absolutely nothing to do with this particular case, which -- plainly spoken -- is about a man who has been accused of a crime, but has not yet plead, or been convicted in ANY court, military or civillian.

And frankly -- if you can't understand the difference between being accused, and being convicted, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a position of sacred trust in defense of our constitution and bill of rights.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Take anything from my home and it would be theft, and would be arrested, and given a fair trial speedily.

Take a wmd from my home, and it would still be theft, but judical compassion will be for you, IF you hand over the WMD to the authorities or others whom will know what to do with such destructive devices, for you may have saved millions if not billions of lives, that the WMD in my hands could have annihilated others.

See the point?
edit on 26-4-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


but since manning is military he is subject to the umcj

and if a person can not keep his mouth shut then they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near classified military documents.

and guess what without this country or national security there is no constitution or bill of rights.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Thanks for letting me know where you stand.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


likewise

manning himself admitted to taking the classified information so just exactly where does presumption of innocence come in to play here?

all thats left is his trial.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Again -- confessions are not convictions in the United States of America. There have literally been thousands of examples in actual case law of coerced confessions. Without specific charges, plea, and / or trial (by a jury of ones peers, or in PFC Manning's case, under the UCMJ), he is -- at best -- accused, at this point.

Thank you for your service, but we have very little common ground if you will not defend the presumption of innocence.
edit on 26-4-2011 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
For once, I will AGREE with the President. Manning BROKE THE LAW. End of story.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


If Manning gets convicted tho this gets Julian out of hot water. For he was just "passing on information" provided to him just like CNN/ABC/CBC/BCC news anchors did.

How can you make this claim? What does this have to do with rape, sexual molestation, or unlawful coercion?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5StarOracle
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


If Manning gets convicted tho this gets Julian out of hot water. For he was just "passing on information" provided to him just like CNN/ABC/CBC/BCC news anchors did.

How can you make this claim? What does this have to do with rape, sexual molestation, or unlawful coercion?


I meant clear him of the Wikileaks scandal.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDesolate
reply to post by Fenrin
 


[...]
And this bears on the topic, how? Foreign nationals captured in the field of combat and held in a prison are relative to this discussion in what way? Trollery is trollery.


Yes it does, because there are some patriots in this thread who deny that their government way to much dirty things in the world. Also it is something which became in detail public because of the hero Manning.
"In the field of combat" is crap. There were persons (e.g. Khalid El-Masri) kidnapped by CIA agents in other western countries and most likely in the US itself too. Or are other western countries are considered as field of combat?


Are you seriously asking? There's so much confusion wrapped up in that statement that it would take days to straighten out. Even if I had the time, I'm sure you don't have the intention to read it. Your agenda is showing.


Some happenings of the past showed that persons are not equally treated in the US by US government and laws. No I don't mean that murderer should be punished equal like thefts or whistle-blowers, but certain US authorities and politicians have much more rights than the normal citizen. Also it seems like anti-patriots are treated different than US patriots.

In some western countries Bradley Manning is rather considered as hero by the masses than as criminal.

(Sorry if my English skills are a bit bad)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join