Reply #43: 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Huh? [View All]

[JoePhilly]

1a) If Military trial ... Obama is CIC, and the military is making the charge. The fact that Obama said he thinks Manning is guilty simply reiterates what the military already charges, that Manning broke the law.

1b) If civilian trial ... absolutely. As a simple test I asked my sister, who does not follow politics closely, if she knew who Bradly Manning was. She'd never heard of him. I bet if you repeat this test all across the country, you can find LOTS and LOTS of people who not only never heard that tiny quote from Obama, they also never heard of Bradly Manning. And then past that, the possibility that a juror has heard about a case, heard people make statements about it is not a new phenomenon. The key question that a judge deals with is can an individual juror remain objective regardless of what they may have heard. This is a key part of the jury selection process.

2) Mistreatment would be illegal in any detainment process. The question however is what constitutes mistreatment? And past that, if there was mistreatment, and if it lead to a confession, or other "evidence". If there was mistreatment, any evidence gained through that mistreatment would be inadmissible. But all other evidence would still stand. Its not as if the mistreatment would cause other evidence to no longer exist.

3) I can't figure out how much damage would be needed to ensure the trial is fair. If your question was "has there been too much damage to have a fair trial" ... then I return to answers 1 and 2.