Obama decides who is guilty

[Serafina]

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

So? How does "it's free speech" invalidate "it's bad form"?
No one is claiming that the has no right to say it. We're just calling him an idiot for doing so.

[GeorgeOrr]

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.

Rightly so, and as Simon_jester demonstrated above, it makes logical sense. I guess my free speech rights are taken away when I am told not to verbally abuse someone. FIRST AMENDMENT!

[Simon_Jester]

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

So? How does "it's free speech" invalidate "it's bad form"?
No one is claiming that the has no right to say it. We're just calling him an idiot for doing so.

I would argue that beyond this, Obama is falling short of his professional responsibilities as head of the executive branch by doing so.

He didn't get that interview as Citizen Barack Obama, private individual like any other. He got it as president of the United States. As such, the authority of his position is tied up in what he says during the interview, and there is no way to avoid this.

He doesn't get a free pass to express his private opinion in a situation like that; just as the powers of his office lend extra weight to his words, so must the responsibilities of his office restrain his words. And one of those responsibilities is to not prejudice the government against someone charged with a crime before their trial.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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

Yes, you did. Then you went on to talk about the presumption of innocence which seemed to me that you were implying exactly the opposite of what you explicitly stated. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

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

Mostly about Manning being held until trial. In the section I quoted it seems like you're thinking that Manning is being treated like he is guilty because he's being held until trial. You weren't exactly specific. However, given the allegations of his treatment even if he were found guilty and convicted that treatment would still not be justified.

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

From what I've read it seems like there are two different stories regarding his treatment. So, I'm not sure which one to believe at the moment.

[TheHammer]

This is really a big semantic game. What I gather from Obama's statement is that he's looked at what he knows to be the facts of the case and has concluded that a guilty verdict is nearly assured when the court martial is actually conducted. It is much ado about nothing. If Obama had put the word "Allegedly" in front of his statement would that make you feel better?

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

Interesting. Maybe it is just me but it seems to me that politicians routinely comment on these matters...

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.

I'm sorry. Is that what happened here with Obama? Several of you seem to be creating strawmen by replacing "broke the law" with "guilty".

What Obama said would be like a police chief in an interview saying three people were arrested for burglary which is against the law. In other words, they were arrested because they broke the law.

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.

How did Obama fail to maintain neutrality? Did he fail to use the correct buzz words?

[Kamakazie Sith]

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

So? How does "it's free speech" invalidate "it's bad form"?
No one is claiming that the has no right to say it. We're just calling him an idiot for doing so.

I disagree. He made a statement of fact. Manning is in custody because he broke the law. Do you disagree with this? Did Manning not break the law? Was Manning arrested for a non-criminal violation?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Rightly so, and as Simon_jester demonstrated above, it makes logical sense. I guess my free speech rights are taken away when I am told not to verbally abuse someone. FIRST AMENDMENT!

Yes, in the context that Simon_Jester described it does make logical sense. However, that's not what happened here with Obama. Your example also fails, horribly. You can't verbally abuse someone (i'm assuming we're talking about harassment and not telling someone to fuck off) because it causes alarm and makes them feel unsafe and not free.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is really a big semantic game. What I gather from Obama's statement is that he's looked at what he knows to be the facts of the case and has concluded that a guilty verdict is nearly assured when the court martial is actually conducted. It is much ado about nothing. If Obama had put the word "Allegedly" in front of his statement would that make you feel better?

I couldn't agree more.

[Bakustra]

Kamakazie, please outline how you differentiate between being guilty of breaking the law and having broken the law. I'm not seeing where the major distinction is in this case. Are trials just formalities then? Are they means for criminals to escape justice?

[Serafina]

This is really a big semantic game. What I gather from Obama's statement is that he's looked at what he knows to be the facts of the case and has concluded that a guilty verdict is nearly assured when the court martial is actually conducted. It is much ado about nothing. If Obama had put the word "Allegedly" in front of his statement would that make you feel better?

So Obama is a judge now?
The whole point of presumption of innocence is that you do NOT supposed to conclude whether someone is guilty, regardless of the evidence available to you, until they are convicted by a judge.
You certainly CAN conclude so in many cases, but in our legal system you are not supposed to. That's why Obama, as an extremely public figure, showed very bad form here.

The media are not supposed to make such conclusions for the same reason. Only very bad yellow press does so - incidentally, they use the very same justification ("his guilt is obvious") than you did for Obama. Again, he has sunk to the level of the yellow press like "The Sun".

[GeorgeOrr]

Rightly so, and as Simon_jester demonstrated above, it makes logical sense. I guess my free speech rights are taken away when I am told not to verbally abuse someone. FIRST AMENDMENT!

Yes, in the context that Simon_Jester described it does make logical sense. However, that's not what happened here with Obama. Your example also fails, horribly. You can't verbally abuse someone (i'm assuming we're talking about harassment and not telling someone to fuck off) because it causes alarm and makes them feel unsafe and not free.

I'm talking about "Fuck off, you piece of shit," not threatening. Your appeal to the first amendment is irrelevant to this discussion, no matter how you try to spin it. No one here has advocated that Obama has no right to his opinion or that he shouldn't be allowed free speech. So, fuck off, you piece of shit. I'm just practicing my first amendment rights, you know?

[mr friendly guy]

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.

As much as I detest how shit Australian media has become, at least we have similar standards here. Radio shock jocks like Derryn Hinch has gone to jail, while trials have been ruled mistrials because of prejudicial claims sprouted by that other shock jock John Laws.

On another note, who cries free speech in such a discussion? MoO tried that spill with me on another thread, even though your right to say something is tangential to what is being discussed. Whats next? Trekkies using their free speech line when their claims "that the Enterprise will single handedly whip the entire Empire fleet of Star Destroyers with Death Star in tow" are demolished for the bullshit it is. That would be entertaining watching Warsies who also have a right wing bent go into apoplexy as that bullshit is thrown in their face.

[Simon_Jester]

GeorgeOrr's breakdown of temper aside...

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.

Interesting. Maybe it is just me but it seems to me that politicians routinely comment on these matters...

Personally, I think that politicians should be a great deal more restrained about matters like this when it comes to the judiciary, because there is a long history of trials becoming a political and media circus under conditions like this. The result usually tells us more about the political prejudices of the era than it does about whether justice can be served.

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.

I'm sorry. Is that what happened here with Obama? Several of you seem to be creating strawmen by replacing "broke the law" with "guilty".

What Obama said would be like a police chief in an interview saying three people were arrested for burglary which is against the law. In other words, they were arrested because they broke the law.

What's at issue is the flat statement "he broke the law." This is pretty reasonably considered to be a statement of guilt- he is not suspected of breaking the law, he is not accused of breaking the law, he simply broke the law.

When I say "These men were arrested for burglary. Burglary is against the law." I am not drawing that bridge to "these men broke the law," because an arrest is not a conviction, is not a formal state finding that yes these people did break the law and will be punished for it. When I say "these men broke the law," I am showing that I have made my own decision about their guilt, well in advance of any trial.

Because once you say "X broke the law," you have pretty much jumped right to "X is guilty."

Now, this wouldn't be a serious problem coming from someone of no authority. But when it's the president of the United States saying it in a discussion of the accused's status and rights, that suggests an attitude by the state which is very prejudicial to the defense. Especially when there is a lot of evidence that they have been treated poorly, and may well continue to be treated poorly, for doing something that is against the interests of the state.

How did Obama fail to maintain neutrality? Did he fail to use the correct buzz words?

Again, that simple point blank statement: "he broke the law."

This comes in the context of the Obama administration's crackdown on whistleblowers, their refusal to investigate crimes committed under Bush, and in general a tightening of the atmosphere of secrecy and closed-system, no-oversight processes by which executive power can be used to achieve the president's ends. Like Bush before him, Obama has put considerable effort into taking as much power as possible and attaching it to the presidency, while resisting attempts to put his own actions up for review by the public.

And now this kind of statement (again, prejudicial to the defense, and indicating intense state hostility to the accused) is made about someone whose actions boil down to revealing state activities the state would rather keep secret.

The harsh treatment of Manning, the official refusal to recognize the treatment of Manning as harsh, and the firing of government officials who are found saying that the treatment of Manning is too harsh... all of this fits very neatly into a pattern of attempting to intimidate whistleblowers and maintain the atmosphere of self-enforcing secrecy around Obama's foreign policy, the punishment of designated 'terrorists' (some of whom, by the very documents Manning released, are apparently known to be innocent), and the quest to take the complex of unassailable, oversight-free security organs that Bush created and make them into a permanent part of the American government.

This is not a healthy pattern for us to fall into as a country. And when we hear from Obama's own mouth that he sees no problem with this and makes no bones about his own lack of interest in addressing the issue of openness in government (one he campaigned on in '08), it is quite disturbing.

[TheHammer]

This is really a big semantic game. What I gather from Obama's statement is that he's looked at what he knows to be the facts of the case and has concluded that a guilty verdict is nearly assured when the court martial is actually conducted. It is much ado about nothing. If Obama had put the word "Allegedly" in front of his statement would that make you feel better?

So Obama is a judge now?
The whole point of presumption of innocence is that you do NOT supposed to conclude whether someone is guilty, regardless of the evidence available to you, until they are convicted by a judge.
You certainly CAN conclude so in many cases, but in our legal system you are not supposed to. That's why Obama, as an extremely public figure, showed very bad form here.

The point is, he's not a judge, nor prosecuter, nor member of the jury. He is a politician with an opinion. I suppose you could say its in "bad form" given that he is the President, but I wonder if you'd be up in arms as well if he came out and called Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner a "murderer" rather than an "alleged murderer". He's not been "convicted" of the crime either after all...

The media are not supposed to make such conclusions for the same reason. Only very bad yellow press does so - incidentally, they use the very same justification ("his guilt is obvious") than you did for Obama. Again, he has sunk to the level of the yellow press like "The Sun".

See the above statement. Unless you are seriously disputing that he was the individual who leaked documents to wikileaks, then what he did was never in doubt. It seems to me like the only defense being offered up by Manning's supporters was that this situation was "just like the pentagon papers" and that he was being a "whistle blower" as justification for breaking the laws that he did. Oops I mean allegedly broke.

Maybe he'll say he didn't do any of it at trial, but at this point I think its more likely they'll try to go with some sort of defense centering around his state of mind when he leaked the documents, not the fact that he leaked them in the first place. Essentially, acknowledging that he committed a crime under UCMJ but that there were extenuating circumstances for which he should be excused/shown clemency.

[Serafina]

The point is, he's not a judge, nor prosecuter, nor member of the jury. He is a politician with an opinion. I suppose you could say its in "bad form" given that he is the President, but I wonder if you'd be up in arms as well if he came out and called Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner a "murderer" rather than an "alleged murderer". He's not been "convicted" of the crime either after all...

Ooh, accuse me of hypocrisy without even the slightest bit of evidence, will you? Here's a hint kiddo, some of us actually follow principles.
And since when is criticizing someone for his statements (itself an act of free speech) being "up in arms"?
But yes, i WOULD condem it if Jared Lee Loughner (whoever he is) would be called a murderer before conviction. Heck, i've done so with the german media several times.

See the above statement. Unless you are seriously disputing that he was the individual who leaked documents to wikileaks, then what he did was never in doubt. It seems to me like the only defense being offered up by Manning's supporters was that this situation was "just like the pentagon papers" and that he was being a "whistle blower" as justification for breaking the laws that he did. Oops I mean allegedly broke.

Hey, shithead:
I AM NOT DEFENDING MANNING HERE. Get some color into your black&white worldview. You're about 60 years out of date, if not more.
The point is that the Obama administration (and therefore the US-government) obviously does not care about fair trials, proper procedure of law and civil rights anymore. This is but the latest piece of evidence for this (on it's own it would be pretty harmless).

But why should i even bother, you're obviously a retard who can't even read properly. Unlike Manning, you'd probably get off on incapability of comprehend your crime if you ever commit one.

[TheHammer]

The point is, he's not a judge, nor prosecuter, nor member of the jury. He is a politician with an opinion. I suppose you could say its in "bad form" given that he is the President, but I wonder if you'd be up in arms as well if he came out and called Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner a "murderer" rather than an "alleged murderer". He's not been "convicted" of the crime either after all...

Ooh, accuse me of hypocrisy without even the slightest bit of evidence, will you? Here's a hint kiddo, some of us actually follow principles.
And since when is criticizing someone for his statements (itself an act of free speech) being "up in arms"?
But yes, i WOULD condem it if Jared Lee Loughner (whoever he is) would be called a murderer before conviction. Heck, i've done so with the german media several times.

If you read closely you'll see I didn't accuse you of hypocrisy. Just wondering to what extent you take your beliefs and whether or not you take the specific circumstances of an event into account. Jared Lee Loughner was the guy from the Arizona shootings a while back - killed a bunch of people at a congressional event. Maybe it didn't get much media coverage in Germany. The reason I mention it is because there was never any doubt that he did it, but he has yet to be convicted of it.

See the above statement. Unless you are seriously disputing that he was the individual who leaked documents to wikileaks, then what he did was never in doubt. It seems to me like the only defense being offered up by Manning's supporters was that this situation was "just like the pentagon papers" and that he was being a "whistle blower" as justification for breaking the laws that he did. Oops I mean allegedly broke.

Hey, shithead:
I AM NOT DEFENDING MANNING HERE. Get some color into your black&white worldview. You're about 60 years out of date, if not more.
The point is that the Obama administration (and therefore the US-government) obviously does not care about fair trials, proper procedure of law and civil rights anymore. This is but the latest piece of evidence for this (on it's own it would be pretty harmless).

But why should i even bother, you're obviously a retard who can't even read properly. Unlike Manning, you'd probably get off on incapability of comprehend your crime if you ever commit one.

Was that response really warranted?

He will still get a trial. The POINT I was trying to make is that in this case what manning did isn't really much in dispute. The defense mounted by his supporters was that he was justified in breaking the law, not that he didn't do it in the first place. So when someone says his "guilt is obvious" that is why they say it.

You jumping all over obama because he said he "committed a crime" rather than "allegedly committed a crime" is ridiculous. Its semantic games that don't really mean much in the end.

[Serafina]

You jumping all over obama because he said he "committed a crime" rather than "allegedly committed a crime" is ridiculous. Its semantic games that don't really mean much in the end.

Yes it does, it happens to be part of one of the core principles of our legal system.

And you obviously missed the point where this is but only the last bit of evidence that Obama does not care about civil rights.

[Simon_Jester]

They don't mean much because in this case, the state is doing its best to pre-decide the outcome: to punish Manning as harshly as possible in order to discourage others from emulating him and acting against the state's wish to maintain secrecy in all its dealings.

Manning will get a trial. If the administration gets its way, this will end up being a mere formality, because Manning is a designated Very Bad Man who (in the view of the state and its upholders) deserves whatever he gets.

This kind of thinking has the advantage of being very simple and reassuring: the powerful state is defined as "us," and "we" seek to punish all "our" enemies and uphold all "our" friends, while acting in whatever "our" interests of the moment may be. But that's OK, because the state would never use this power to punish us, because we're part of it.

To go with the advantage of being simple and reassuring, this kind of thinking has the disadvantage of being very stupid. It leads inevitably to injustice, as any number of historical examples show.

The other choice is, yes, observance of the rule of law. The law is set above the state, and the protocols that make up the law are important. Their importance comes from the mental discipline they impose on us: they force us to follow a careful process before we use the power of the state to cause harm.

By following the law where it requires us to honor the rights of the accused, we avoid jumping to conclusions, punishing the innocent along with the guilty, and letting the true criminals escape in the confusion.

This is important. It should not be brushed aside as a mere formality.

[TheHammer]

You jumping all over obama because he said he "committed a crime" rather than "allegedly committed a crime" is ridiculous. Its semantic games that don't really mean much in the end.

Yes it does, it happens to be part of one of the core principles of our legal system.

And you obviously missed the point where this is but only the last bit of evidence that Obama does not care about civil rights.

Your other evidence not withstanding, I don't consider this particular incident to be evidence of not caring about civil rights. It's a "gotcha" where Obama failed to add the disclaimer of "allegedly" which would otherwise have made all his statements ok. Being a former lawyer, I'm sure if Obama had it to do over again he would have added the words "allegedly" to prevent people from blowing it way out of proportion.

[Dominus Atheos]

Firedoglake

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 undo 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.

When unlawful command influence occurs a heavy burden is put on the prosecution to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the facts upon which the unlawful command influence is based are untrue; (2) those facts do not constitute unlawful command influence; or (3) the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings.” Since President Obama is on videotape announcing the finding of guilt it will be impossible to prove either of the first two points. To prove the third point will require the court to enter into a charade where officers claim they are not influenced by the commander-in-chief. In reality, the president announcing the guilt of Manning before he is tried will influence every officer who wants to continue to advance in his or her career. And, since Manning has already been punished severely before trial officers will be even less likely to find Manning not guilty because that would raise questions about his abusive treatment.

Military case law indicates that “pretrial publicity itself may constitute unlawful command influence.” When the president speaks it results in national media attention (see a google search for “Obama Manning guilty” produced 1.5 million stories by April 24th). Of course, the president’s statement of Manning’s guilt was not the only pre-trial publicity in Manning’s case. In addition, the brutal treatment Manning has received during pre-trial detention has also received widespread media attention. The combination of this mistreatment and the president’s statements shows that the military from the Quantico command to the commander-in-chief saw Manning as guilty and wanted him punished harshly.

Military courts have held over and over that if unlawful command influence is proven then dismissal of the case is appropriate. (See United States v. Douglas, 68 M.J. 349 (2010) and the cases cited therein.) “[D]ismissal of charges is appropriate when an accused would be prejudiced or no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.” There is no question Manning has been prejudiced and it is hard to imagine how the proceedings can be cleansed of this unlawful command influence so there is no useful purpose in continuing.

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.”

Unlawful command influence causes “exceptional harm . . . to the fairness and public perception of military justice when it does arise” This harm is magnified in the case of Bradley Manning because of the severe mistreatment he has received in Quantico before even being tried. This is a case where punishment in Quantico and a finding of guilt by the commander-in-chief both came before trial. The sooner this prosecution ends the less damage that will be done to the reputation of the military justice system.

[Serafina]

Pretty much what i was thinking, tough i did not want to make any claims about it since i am mostly unfamiliar with military trials.

By the way, while i personally think that Manning will be found guilty* even if the trial proceeds fairly, i would be glad to see him go free, especially based on the stupidity of the United States administration. He is NOT likely to commit any further crimes, so he is no danger to society. He's already been tortured and imprisoned for an unreasonable length. And i think that any claims that the risked national security are overblown and rely on loose definitions where almost anything is a "threat to national security".
Also, it would achieve a great political goal: The Bush MKII-administration would fail to suppress criticism.


* Note how i avoided saying "he is guilty" here, while still expressing my opinion. There are many other ways to do it. That specific formulation would still have been bad coming from Obama, since it can be read as pressure that he SHOULD be convicted. But it would be fine for an outside party (which Obama is NOT due to his position as commander in chief), such as the press.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamakazie, please outline how you differentiate between being guilty of breaking the law and having broken the law. I'm not seeing where the major distinction is in this case. Are trials just formalities then? Are they means for criminals to escape justice?

In some cases trials are formalities. Everyone has a right to a trial regardless of the circumstances. In Mannings case it is very important because he may have reasonable cause for taking the action that he did. In other words, the proper channels for releasing such information did not want to hear it and it simply wasn't possible for him to release the relevant material in a timely manner which is why he released sensitive information regarding non-war criminal acts.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm talking about "Fuck off, you piece of shit," not threatening.

Why would you think you can't do that? You can do that.

Your appeal to the first amendment is irrelevant to this discussion, no matter how you try to spin it. No one here has advocated that Obama has no right to his opinion or that he shouldn't be allowed free speech. So, fuck off, you piece of shit. I'm just practicing my first amendment rights, you know?

As I explained to Serafina, that is how I felt he was advocating it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Personally, I think that politicians should be a great deal more restrained about matters like this when it comes to the judiciary, because there is a long history of trials becoming a political and media circus under conditions like this. The result usually tells us more about the political prejudices of the era than it does about whether justice can be served.

I agree. Activist media, and really the media in general has a way of blowing things out of proportion. In my opinion, this is exactly one of those times. Especially coming from a website with "Obama to Pre-Schoolers: Sorry I Had to Fire Your Teacher, But Now I Can Buy Almost 1/50th of a Tomahawk Missile" as one of their headlines. They seem to have a knack for exaggeration.

What's at issue is the flat statement "he broke the law." This is pretty reasonably considered to be a statement of guilt- he is not suspected of breaking the law, he is not accused of breaking the law, he simply broke the law.

So, we're talking about nitpicking?

When I say "These men were arrested for burglary. Burglary is against the law." I am not drawing that bridge to "these men broke the law," because an arrest is not a conviction, is not a formal state finding that yes these people did break the law and will be punished for it. When I say "these men broke the law," I am showing that I have made my own decision about their guilt, well in advance of any trial.

Because once you say "X broke the law," you have pretty much jumped right to "X is guilty."

I think this is just a matter of opinion. To me the two do not mean the same thing. If Obama felt that Manning was guilty then why didn't he say "Manning is guilty"? He is after all a former lawyer...

Now, this wouldn't be a serious problem coming from someone of no authority. But when it's the president of the United States saying it in a discussion of the accused's status and rights, that suggests an attitude by the state which is very prejudicial to the defense. Especially when there is a lot of evidence that they have been treated poorly, and may well continue to be treated poorly, for doing something that is against the interests of the state.

I understand that this is how you interpret the situation. I do not see it that way. I think your argument would have more merit if Obama was a SCOTUS judge.

This comes in the context of the Obama administration's crackdown on whistleblowers, their refusal to investigate crimes committed under Bush, and in general a tightening of the atmosphere of secrecy and closed-system, no-oversight processes by which executive power can be used to achieve the president's ends. Like Bush before him, Obama has put considerable effort into taking as much power as possible and attaching it to the presidency, while resisting attempts to put his own actions up for review by the public.

And now this kind of statement (again, prejudicial to the defense, and indicating intense state hostility to the accused) is made about someone whose actions boil down to revealing state activities the state would rather keep secret.

The harsh treatment of Manning, the official refusal to recognize the treatment of Manning as harsh, and the firing of government officials who are found saying that the treatment of Manning is too harsh... all of this fits very neatly into a pattern of attempting to intimidate whistleblowers and maintain the atmosphere of self-enforcing secrecy around Obama's foreign policy, the punishment of designated 'terrorists' (some of whom, by the very documents Manning released, are apparently known to be innocent), and the quest to take the complex of unassailable, oversight-free security organs that Bush created and make them into a permanent part of the American government.

This is not a healthy pattern for us to fall into as a country. And when we hear from Obama's own mouth that he sees no problem with this and makes no bones about his own lack of interest in addressing the issue of openness in government (one he campaigned on in '08), it is quite disturbing.

So you feel that Obama choice of words is actually a "freudian slip" and that his true feelings on Manning are actually part of the larger picture regarding the take over of the government by the executive branch or is that not what you're saying? Have you considered the possibility that Obama was just citing the reality of the situation. That Manning is in custody for breaking a law?