Obama decides who is guilty

[Skgoa]

Obama on Manning: “He Broke the Law.” So Much for that Trial?
By: Michael Whitney Friday April 22, 2011 8:17 am

TweetTweet793
digg stumbleupon

President Barack Obama made stunning accusations about accused Wikileaks whistleblower PFC Bradley Manning, directly asserting that Manning “broke the law.” Apparently 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.

In a discussion yesterday with Logan Price, a Bradley Manning supporter who was part of a group of activists who sang a song during the President’s San Francisco fundraiser, President Obama flatly stated that Bradley Manning “dumped” documents and that “he broke the law.” A rough transcript follows, provided by UK Friends of Bradley Manning:

OBAMA: So people can have philosophical views [about Bradley Manning] but I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source [basis]… 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.

[Q: Didn't he release evidence of war crimes?]

OBAMA: What he did was he dumped…

[Q: Isn't that just the same thing as what Daniel Ellsberg did?]

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. Manning’s lawyer is considering considered (corrected: his transfer made the writ moot) filing a writ of habeus corpus for the length of time and totality of abuse suffered by Manning while in military custody.

President Obama has already made up his mind. He thinks Manning “broke the law.” It’s no wonder he considered Manning’s abuse to “meet our basic standards” when he thinks Manning is already guilty.

This is vile.

As a reminder: the Pentagon plans to hold Manning indefinitely. Might as well, since they think he’s guilty already.

source: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/0 ... hat-trial/


To me, even more astonishing than the head of government declaring someone guilty is:
How can someone who led such a great campaign and who made such moving and intelligent speeches mouth of like that?

[Serafina]

How can someone who led such a great campaign and who made such moving and intelligent speeches mouth of like that?

Because large numbers of the american public, except the left, think the same?
And it's not like Obama gives a damn about the political left in the USA anyway, practically no one does.

[Sarevok]

Since when is the cruel and unusual punishment Mannings receiving part of fair and just law ? In Saudi Arabia they cut off thieves hands in public. Is making an example out of Mannings to deter future offenders in Saudi justice style how the US operates now ?

[Kamakazie Sith]

source: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/0 ... hat-trial/


To me, even more astonishing than the head of government declaring someone guilty is:
How can someone who led such a great campaign and who made such moving and intelligent speeches mouth of like that?

I think you and the author of the article or over reacting. Obama was making a statement of fact. Manning did break the law. I don't see what this sort of nitpicking accomplishes. Seems to me they had a shitty interview and to salvage it so they decided to spin it into something controversial.

"OMG, president Obama has an opinion!!! RAGE!"

[Serafina]

Presumption of Innocence.

It is the duty of the prosecution (and therefore of the state) to provide evidence of the accused persons guilt. This has to be done in court, which will give a sentence according to the available evidence.
This has not yet been done in Private Mannings case.
Since this has not yet been done, he is to be treated as if he were innocent. This is clearly not the case, he is treated as if he were guilty and already convicted. Now i am sure no one doubts that he did what he did, and that this can be treated as a crime. That's not the point, since presumption of innocence applies even in obvious and clear cases.
The point is that the United States are violating fundamental human rights and legal principles in their treatment of Manning. Obamas statement is not by itself a grave violation of these principles, but fit's perfectly with other violations.

It's not really that bad when the press or even state officials unrelated to the case call someone guilty before a court has determined his guilt (unless you have a jury system). Obamas statement is bad because it supports the inhumane and illegal treatment of Manning.
Also, Obama should really know this basic principle, given that he is a scholar of (constitutional) law.

[Vympel]

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

This is a hilarious thing to say, given what Ellsberg released was top secret, whilst what Manning allegedly released was of a lower order of security. There's zero relevant difference between what Ellsberg did and what Manning did.

[someone_else]

Presumption of Innocence.

Ok, Manning has to be treated as if he were innocent, but can Obama think he is guilty anyway?
I mean, one thing is the procedure and one thing is the personal opinion of the people performing it. (and Obama isn't even doing a shit in this)

Obama only said that Manning broke the law (and that seems to be a very obvious fact), not that the current treatment of Manning is justified.

The title is misleading. Obama is talking, his words in an interview don't decide a damn thing.

[Stofsk]

Since when is the cruel and unusual punishment Mannings receiving part of fair and just law ? In Saudi Arabia they cut off thieves hands in public. Is making an example out of Mannings to deter future offenders in Saudi justice style how the US operates now ?

General deterrence is a part of the sentencing process (the balancing act is between that, protecting the community and rehabilitation). However, it is customary to do this after a trial where the accused has been found guilty, not before.

[K. A. Pital]

Um... Obama did not say no trial is needed, right? The title needs to be corrected.

[Bakustra]

Presumption of Innocence.

Ok, Manning has to be treated as if he were innocent, but can Obama think he is guilty anyway?
I mean, one thing is the procedure and one thing is the personal opinion of the people performing it. (and Obama isn't even doing a shit in this)

Obama only said that Manning broke the law (and that seems to be a very obvious fact), not that the current treatment of Manning is justified.

The title is misleading. Obama is talking, his words in an interview don't decide a damn thing.

Surely Obama can avoid saying this in an interview, though, because when speaking as the President of the US, he's essentially saying that this is the presidential view. In this case, he's essentially saying, "the opinion of the President of the United States is that Bradley Manning is guilty of a crime", especially since he declared this to be fact without saying that it was his personal opinion. Now, is Manning likely to be guilty of leaking classified documents, assuming that that is the crime they will eventually settle on charging him with? Yes. But there is a difference between what is essentially an official statement of guilt and a personal opinion of guilt, and the one states that his guilt is a fact (and thus a trial is superfluous and they should immediately go to sentencing) and the other says "I believe that Bradley Manning broke the law in leaking this documents."

Now, did Obama necessarily consider all this? No, especially since it was an on-the-street impromptu interview. But that makes it more valuable since it's likely to be closer to what Obama believes or has been led to believe. Is this important? Not very. But it's worth it to add to the pile of evidence suggesting that Obama is just as aligned to the security industry as Bush and Clinton were.

[TheHammer]

Obama isn't Manning's judge or jury. He represents the entity that is prosecuting Manning - the federal government. It is commonly assumed that the prosecuting entity believes the accused to be guilty of a crime otherwise they would not be prosecuting them.

[Stofsk]

What about separation of powers? It is highly inappropriate for the executive to comment on anything that is before the courts. What about ensuring a fair trial to the accused - a part of the US constitution I believe. As President and as a lawyer Obama would have to have known this.

[Mr Bean]

Obama isn't Manning's judge or jury. He represents the entity that is prosecuting Manning - the federal government. It is commonly assumed that the prosecuting entity believes the accused to be guilty of a crime otherwise they would not be prosecuting them.

Judges are also part of the federal government, Public defenders are also part of the federal government. By that logic they should also believe the accused is guilty because they would not be prosecuting them if they were not.

Incorrect, US laws states that everyone is presumed innocent, it's highly inaprorate for anyone OTHER than the Prosecution and the Defense to comment about an ongoing case. That's why when any other President(Including Bush II) was commenting on a ongoing case, even of the 9/11 co-conspirators, they would state that Justice would be served and never directly called them guilty.

[Tanasinn]

How can someone who led such a great campaign and who made such moving and intelligent speeches mouth of like that?

Because large numbers of the american public, except the left, think the same?
And it's not like Obama gives a damn about the political left in the USA anyway, practically no one does.

At this point, they don't even have to pretend that they give a shit what we think, since they're well aware that we'll vote just to prevent Republicans from taking office.

[Beowulf]

Obama isn't Manning's judge or jury. He represents the entity that is prosecuting Manning - the federal government. It is commonly assumed that the prosecuting entity believes the accused to be guilty of a crime otherwise they would not be prosecuting them.

Judges are also part of the federal government, Public defenders are also part of the federal government. By that logic they should also believe the accused is guilty because they would not be prosecuting them if they were not.

Incorrect, US laws states that everyone is presumed innocent, it's highly inaprorate for anyone OTHER than the Prosecution and the Defense to comment about an ongoing case. That's why when any other President(Including Bush II) was commenting on a ongoing case, even of the 9/11 co-conspirators, they would state that Justice would be served and never directly called them guilty.

Worse, since the jury will be composed of military members, it's quite likely that Obama's saying that he's guilty will be seen as prejudicial to the defense, resulting in the entire case being tossed out when it reaches appeals.

[wautd]

Related so I wanted to share this

Obama Heckled By Singing Protester At Fundraiser

To know the activists had to pay around 5000 € each to be present at the event...

[Serafina]

Obama isn't Manning's judge or jury. He represents the entity that is prosecuting Manning - the federal government. It is commonly assumed that the prosecuting entity believes the accused to be guilty of a crime otherwise they would not be prosecuting them.

A prosecution is really more of an investigation. After all, the prosecutors duty is NOT "make sure that that person goes to jail at all costs", it's "make sure that a person guilty of a crime goes to jail". They investigate, then they bring up their case in court which then determines whether the person charged is guilty.
Really, if you don't get that the court, not the prosecutor or anyone else, is determining guilt in our legal systems, then you just fail Law 101.


And again, Obamas statement is not illegal or threatening Mannings rights or anything.
It's just really bad form, and reinforcing the notion that the american government does not care for the rules of law.


By the way, calling someone guilty, a murderer or anything like that before that person is convicted is highly frowned upon in German media. Only the bad parts of our yellow press does so. Usually the BILD-Zeitung - and they're pretty much our equivalent to the british "The Sun". So yes, Obama has sunk to the lowest levels of the yellow press.

[Chirios]

He did break the law. Obama isn't saying anything that's untrue.

[Mr Bean]

He did break the law. Obama isn't saying anything that's untrue.

This has yet to be proven in a court of Law.
In America, if ten people saw you do it and three filmed you, if you called ahead and told the police I'm going to do it tomorrow and you left a signed confession at the scene, you are STILL innocent until proven guilty.

Further as noted this is not he first time something like this has happened, in fact this exact same situation has happened twice before, most recently with the Pentagon Papers and this case is being treated by a far different set of standards.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

...Actually, there are some parallels between the two cases. Ellsberg was held for nearly two years between his surrender and his trial, and there was some pretty rampant governmental asshattery trying to convict him - this is, in fact, what led to the mistrial result.

The two big differences I can see are that Ellsberg wasn't military personnel so he didn't rate a military trial, but I don't really see that applying military justice standards to a private in Army Intelligence is in itself exactly a massive human rights violation; and Ellsberg wasn't held in moderately vicious and unnecessary conditions, which is really my primary objection to the whole proceedings with Manning.

I'll be interested to see what actually happens in the eventual trial. I imagine there's likely to be more viable evidence against Manning, but frankly, given how spectacularly the Ellsberg case was botched (illegal wiretaps? breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office?), that's not much of a statement.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Presumption of Innocence.

Which doesn't prohibit people from having an opinion. Free speech, remember that?

It is the duty of the prosecution (and therefore of the state) to provide evidence of the accused persons guilt. This has to be done in court, which will give a sentence according to the available evidence.
This has not yet been done in Private Mannings case.

True. I wasn't aware that Obama citing his opinion during an interview was considered the same as a verdict being handed down by a judge or jury.

Since this has not yet been done, he is to be treated as if he were innocent. This is clearly not the case, he is treated as if he were guilty and already convicted. Now i am sure no one doubts that he did what he did, and that this can be treated as a crime. That's not the point, since presumption of innocence applies even in obvious and clear cases.

You have to remember that this is being held as a military trial. Things are a bit different. However, even in civilian criminal cases depending on the charge a person can be held without bail and until trial.

The point is that the United States are violating fundamental human rights and legal principles in their treatment of Manning. Obamas statement is not by itself a grave violation of these principles, but fit's perfectly with other violations.

Obamas' statement isn't a violation at all. Period.

It's not really that bad when the press or even state officials unrelated to the case call someone guilty before a court has determined his guilt (unless you have a jury system). Obamas statement is bad because it supports the inhumane and illegal treatment of Manning.
Also, Obama should really know this basic principle, given that he is a scholar of (constitutional) law.

The article didn't involve questions regarding Mannings treatment. A person can think Manning broke the law and at the same time believe the treatment is unethical.

[Serafina]

Which doesn't prohibit people from having an opinion. Free speech, remember that?

Are you even reading what i wrote?
I explicitly stated that Obamas action was not illegal, but rather just really bad form.

You have to remember that this is being held as a military trial. Things are a bit different. However, even in civilian criminal cases depending on the charge a person can be held without bail and until trial.

Wait, since when do military trials not have presumption of innocence?
What's the difference you're talking about?

The article didn't involve questions regarding Mannings treatment. A person can think Manning broke the law and at the same time believe the treatment is unethical.

Obama doesn't do the latter tough, even tough it clearly is.

[GeorgeOrr]

Presumption of Innocence.

Which doesn't prohibit people from having an opinion. Free speech, remember that?

How the hell is free speech relevant to this discussion?

[Simon_Jester]

Presumption of Innocence.

Which doesn't prohibit people from having an opinion. Free speech, remember that?

It is the duty of the prosecution (and therefore of the state) to provide evidence of the accused persons guilt. This has to be done in court, which will give a sentence according to the available evidence.
This has not yet been done in Private Mannings case.

True. I wasn't aware that Obama citing his opinion during an interview was considered the same as a verdict being handed down by a judge or jury.

Public officials have a special obligation not to screw around with their "private opinions" in situations like this; the higher-level the official, the stronger this obligation becomes. One of the responsibilities of high public office is supposed to be that you can't fully take it off- you are always, to some extent, speaking ex cathedra.

Put it this way. When a private citizen calls some unpopular person in the city a "criminal son of a bitch," he can be assumed to be speaking rhetorically. It reflects only his opinion. He has no authority to punish anyone for being a criminal son of a bitch.

When the chief of police calls the same person a "criminal son of a bitch," it's a bit more disturbing. Because the chief of police has enough power that if he really really believes that this person is a criminal son of a bitch, he may try to use that power to persecute that person- to try extra-hard to find a way to see that person punished, no matter what the book says.

On top of that, because the chief of police has a prestigious position that involves fighting crime, he has the ability to use his position as a pulpit; when he speaks people listen to him more closely, because of who he is. His accusations will be taken more seriously- seriously enough that the person so accused might well be able to find grounds to sue for slander.

People charged with executing the law have a special duty to maintain professional neutrality for these reasons- both to prevent bias from turning the enforcement of law into the persecution of designated "Very Bad People," and to stop public officials from using their positions of prestige and authority as a weapon against people they dislike, but can't find a way to harm legally.

Remember "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

[Kamakazie Sith]

Presumption of Innocence.

Which doesn't prohibit people from having an opinion. Free speech, remember that?

How the hell is free speech relevant to this discussion?

Because those crying out against Obama are claiming that his use of free speech regarding this is bad form, or highly inappropriate.