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

Originally posted by Fenrin
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?

You said Guantanamo. Was El-Masri ever in Gitmo?

Where is he now?

And what has he been doing since 2004?

Yeah, he''s a sweetheart.

Come back when you can follow a train of thought.

Originally posted by MrDesolate

Originally posted by Fenrin
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?

You said Guantanamo. Was El-Masri ever in Gitmo?

Where is he now?

And what has he been doing since 2004?

Yeah, he''s a sweetheart.

Come back when you can follow a train of thought.

wikipedia or google can also answer this questions. I would waste my time answering them.

Originally posted by neo96
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.

Since when? Source for this please.

Don't know how reliable the source is for true interpretation of UCMJ but I read an article about this subject yesterday.

President Obama’s pronouncement about Manning, “He broke the law,” amounts to unlawful command influence – something prohibited in military trials because it is devastating to the military justice system. Manning will be judged by a jury of military officers in a military court where everyone involved follows the orders of the commander-in-chief. How are these officers going to rule against their commander-in-chief, especially after Manning has been tortured in solitary confinement for almost a year? Any officer who finds Manning “not guilty” will have no chance of advancing his career after doing so.

Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes undue command influence unlawful. Unlawful Command Influence has been called “the carcinoma of the military justice system” and is often described as “the mortal enemy of military justice.” The importance of the command structure in the military makes command influence a threat to fair trails, i.e. “because the inherent power and influence of command are necessary and omnipresent facets of military life, everyone involved in both unit command and in military justice must exercise constant vigilance to protect against command influence becoming unlawful.”

Accordingly, “Unlawful Command Influence occurs when senior personnel, wittingly or unwittingly, have acted to influence court members, witnesses, or others participating in military justice cases. Such unlawful influence not only jeopardizes the validity of the judicial process, it undermines the morale of military members, their respect for the chain of command, and public confidence in the military.” Further, even: “The ‘appearance of unlawful command influence is as devastating to the military justice system as the actual manipulation of any given trial.’” The commander-in-chief announcing guilt before trial is an unprecedented case of unlawful command influence.

And because Obama messed up.

The White House made an inept attempt to try and change the obvious meaning of the president’s statement. Politico reports: “White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was in fact 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,’ he said Friday night. ‘He was not expressing a view as to the guilt or innocence of Pfc. Manning specifically.’” This clarification is inept because Obama was quite specific in his comments saying: “He broke the law.”

Source

reply to post by Bramble Iceshimmer


Regrettably for some, your are correct.

Since there are two ongoing dialogs, forgive me if my answer seems to veer away from the point.

The attempt to 'massage' President Obama's statement in the manner it was done is, at least to my consideration, an indicator of exactly how grave the error was.

Of course, unlike many, I am disinclined to blame President Obama for the transgression (of a better way to discuss this case). As President and Commander in Chief he must bear the responsibility of adhering to the letter of the law; but as a politician campaigning (i.e. pandering) he cannot afford to appear 'forgiving' or in any way to falter in his love of the country and presumptive patriotic fervor to see justice done.

There are people who are carrying the dignity of service an d are rightfully offended at the young man's presumption. This is to be expected. That they are intent on spewing derision against any attempt to point out a reality they do not perceive is also to be expected.

We all have access to the same information (presumably) so we certainly cannot debate that Manning made any plea or admission to the public. We can only assume that his lawyer is ethical and will not abandon him to folly. Presumably he will plead not guilty, once charged. And I suspect that he must steel himself to the reality that he must face the consequences of his actions , whether they were right or not is not of consequence in this matter.

Flatly, he 'technically' could be shot over this... or whatever they would deem appropriate. I doubt it will get to such a point; but people can be influenced... so only time will tell. And of course, that is only if he is charged with Treason (the big "T"). In the end, the tribunal will decide.... not us. I trust my fellow veterans can attest that no soldier. sailor, airman, or marine ever takes the duty of being a participant in such proceedings lightly. But on this you only have my assertion (granted based on my own time in service.) So what I am trying to say is I am confident justice will be done in a thoughtful manner.... which even includes the possibility I spoke of earlier, reduction in rank, Dishonorable Discharge, time served.

Again... they will decide... not us. The intent to prosecute is clear; otherwise his detention is pointless; and some might even claim cruel and unusual. Detainees of our government are to be charged ASAP.... that's what America is all about, right?

As to whether what he did was moral or criminal is a deep subject, one that can't exist in an environment of soap box declarations and political baiting. Maybe some day that discussion can happen.... maybe after the election, when people start thinking straight again.

It just seems that On The Job Training is not a very good idea for POTUS but I don't know where you could get such training otherwise. Maybe he needs to wear a white noise generator or something to keep mics and cameras from picking up off the record comments.

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
Bush Invades a whole country on a lie that killed thousands of American soldiers. Manning tells the truth and will be put in prison for the rest of his life. None of the soldiers that killed innocent civilians in the video wiki leaks revealed face any trial. It's a screwed up world we live in.

edit on 26-4-2011 by XxRagingxPandaxX because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2011 by XxRagingxPandaxX because: (no reason given)

I couldn't agree more. Didn't obama always brag about pulling the troops out. Eh, just another fall guys or scapegoat for the military industrial complex and we wonder why the Arabs want to kill us?

Tis because we are and have killing 100,000's of innocents for resources

Whatever happened to Obama's "That's in the past, let's move forward" policy? Can we now hope he will speak out against the crimes commited by the Bush administration?

Well, we can hope, of course. That is what he promised, after all. We can hope for change; doesn't mean we'll get it, though.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Maybe some day that discussion can happen.... maybe after the election, when people start thinking straight again.

Oh Max, you big kidder.

And anyhow, maybe I'm somehow as naive as I am cynical, but I believe the ethical question, at least, can still be contemplated through the static. Ethics are beautiful because they are apolitical, but then again, as you (seem to) say, in the land of the partisan, the philosopher is generally busy running public relations.

For a person who ran on transparency in government, he sure is doing an about face. The U.S. is really revealing itself as a government of Hypocrites.

-They use to point the finger at the Soviet Union for invasions, yet we invaded Panama & Iraq.

-They use to tell the world we don't condone torture and we abide by the Geneva Convention. Yet we do.

-They use to tell us the Soviet Union was bent on spreading communism, yet we're trying to spread democracy in the middle east and around the world.

-Our constitution protected us from illegal search and seizures, yet we have DUI checkpoints, TSA pat downs, Car & home searches "using the "questionable" probable cause,"

-Our constitution protected us from illegal wire tapping, yet cell phones, and the internet are being monitored in the name of the Patriot Act.

-We use to have the right to assemble and protest, yet now unarmed and peaceful protesters are being arrested.

-Congress has failed its duty to uphold its obligation to impeach governmental officials who abuse their power.

-Putting names on terrorist lists with no evidence to support it. (Didn't they do this to MLK?)

What the hell is happening?

reply to post by WeRpeons


What's happened can be summed up well by many, all I can can conjure up for an answer is

A - It is not the "U.S." that is hypocritical, just as it is not hypocritical for any nation state to exist as best it can. it IS, however, a hypocritical party that has usurped the system for at least, it's own amusement, and at worst... well let's not go there.

B - The essential policies and intentions of the government are not being represented by the character of the players 'serving' the nation.

C - Under the guise of "continuity of government' (or is that "continuity of governance"?) they will never relinquish the hold they have on the freedom to conduct their will under our presumed support. And every day they succeed in making "our support" increasingly irrelevant.

Americans will eventually have to undergo a paradigm shift to regain control of the government and make it an unsuitable tool for exploitation and conquest. How that can happen requires a character the nation appears unwilling to adopt. The status quo has great inertia because those maintaining it either enjoy their 'role' or fear change.

Is there any doubt manning broke the law?

Hasnt' he admitted to it?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


It's not my intention to appear fascetious but, there is always doubt... doubt first, guilt later... it's better that way.

I know many want to skip the doubt and guilt part and get to the punishment, but we have a process, and that process is due.

AS for an admission or plea, I've heard none. If it has happened I would hope someone would be so kind as to share it. At least that much can then be put to rest.

In the military, if your in long enough, you know the way military law works is that you are guilty until proven innocent.

Obama shouldn't have said he broke the law, but he really didn't say anything wrong. In the miltary laws eyes he did break the law and it is up to him to prove that he didn't.

Everyone that sits on the military panel will already be assuming he is guilty so his words wont really have that much of an impact on their judgement.

What's crazy is that you read what Obama says and it reads just the same as GW Bush speeches...

Who else often said people were guilty before trial... Bush!

It's all rigged, and we are the dupes.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Is there any doubt manning broke the law?

Hasnt' he admitted to it?

Not as far as I know. If you have a source that says otherwise please post.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Is there any doubt manning broke the law?

Hasnt' he admitted to it?

Not as far as I know. If you have a source that says otherwise please post.

Sure:

Spc Manning is said to have confessed to leaking the video of the helicopter attack to WikiLeaks in a series of online chats with a former computer hacker, Adrian Lamo.

www.bbc.co.uk...

cryptome.org...


Isn't that admitting to a crime?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Actually no. At the moment it's hearsay.

Also, pay specially close attention to any media sources using the words "is reported to have said xyz" or "[someone] has reported that xyz...." because legally that has no meaning... it's ALL hearsay at that point.

Due to the freedom to fabricate, editorialize, and commercialize ANY information they desire, the current press is not legally a viable source of facts. Going on nothing else, I would say that this may end up as evidence, but in the manner it was "reported," it is not.

Sadly, political and legal gamesmanship is running amok in this country. If he affirms the conversation and content, then it may qualify as evidence of admission. But now we are getting into lawyer games....

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Yeah maxmars pretty much summed it up. The thing with this case is that I wouldn't trust Lamo as far as I could throw him. Shady character all the way. Hacker too and not to mention that the "confession" is chat logs.