President Obama Judges Manning - W/O - A Trial: "He broke the law."

[kpete]

Run time: 01:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfmtUpd4id0   Posted on YouTube: April 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: scscreamer Views on YouTube: 484   Posted on DU: April 22, 2011 By DU Member: kpete Views on DU: 7527

 
UK Friends of Bradley Manning
Barack Obama on Bradley Manning – “We’re a nation of laws!”

On Thursday morning Pacific Time, a group of Bradley Manning supporters staged a flashmob at a Barack Obama fundraising event in San Francisco. Even more amazingly, one of those supporters was able to question the US President directly afterwards:

..............

Here’s a close-to-verbatim account of what was said:

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?


What he did was he dumped…


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


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

http://blog.ukfriendsofbradleymanning.org/2011/04/22/barack-obama-on-bradley-manning-were-a-nation-of-laws/


...........

UPDATE:
2011-04-22 President Obama Condemns Bradley Manning's Contempt for the Rule of Law

Ideally, the US is a nation of laws but in reality it is not. The Executive Branch led by the President of the United States can choose what legal restrictions to abide by and what not to and it can choose what violations of the law to prosecute and what not to prosecute.

http://wlcentral.org/node/1675

[HolyCity2012]

1. Mr. Constitutional Lawyer?

I hope our President is asked about these statements in the near future. I am curious as to what his explanation will be.

p.s. Great Find!

[yurbud]

60. the constitution only works against us not for us. Obama knows the game: suck up and shit down

[2banon]

68. Yeah.. I wonder how he was able to obtain Law Review status

He seems to be lacking a certain level of acumen that I had perceieved he had possessed during the 2008 campaign.

Now I'm wondering if that perception was created more by way of comparison to how much dubbya lacked in that department. In other words, dumbing down of my perceptions vis a vis 8 years of stunning ignorance, made it seem that Obama was not merely intelligent, but actually brilliant.

Rose colored prescriptions are completely shattered...

[golddigger]

2. So did Bush and Cheney Mr. President. We are a nation of laws...

What a fuckin lie!

Edit to add: For certain individuals.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Bradley Manning is...

no Daniel Ellsberg.

[tekisui]

5. Agreed. What Manning did is even more valuable.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Bullshit n/t

[tekisui]

16. I appreciate exposure of war crimes and lies by our government.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Along with indiscriminately compromising...

raw intelligence and diplomatic cables.

You left that part out.

[tekisui]

21. No harm has been done. Biden and Clinton disagree with you.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Nice cherry-picking...

dude.

[tekisui]

26. The VP and SoS are cherry picking?

LOL!!!! Give an example of a harm done to diplomacy, please.

[SDuderstadt]

28. No, you are n/t

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

23. Interesting.

Not everything that Manning allegedly leaked has been revealed, but you already know for sure whether it is more valuable.

Anyway, Daniel Ellsberg disagrees with you.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Well, good for...

Ellsberg.

[liberation]

31. I love how people who would have crucified Ellsberg over 3 decades ago, now get to use him

to crucify his modern counterpart.

Yay!

[SDuderstadt]

44. Nice strawman...

I never "crucified" Ellsberg.

In fact, I met him at a function several years ago, shook his hand and thanked him for what he did. However, I think he's wrong about Manning.

You'd better go grab a bucket of water. Your strawman is on fire.

[liberation]

48. LOL.

I just talked to Ellsberg and he told me he does not remember meeting anyone fitting your description.

Anyhow, if you think Ellsberg is "wrong" on this issue, why did you use his name to justify your initial post? That sort of invalidates your point.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Another stupid strawman...

By the way, my post didn't use Ellsberg to "justify" anything. Maybe you should actually read it.

[liberation]

52. Woooossssshhhhhh

also, that word "strawman" does not mean what you think it does if you have to use fallacy to answer a supposed one.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Look at your second sentence...

dude.

Read my posts again and show me where I ever used Ellsberg to justify anything.

There's your strawman, dude.

[liberation]

71. First off, there is only one dude and my last name is not Lebowski

Second, this is your actual post "Bradley Manning is... no Daniel Ellsberg." So indeed you were trying to use Ellsberg's name to make your point.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt which is why I found your pile on fallacies so amusing. It seems clear now that your approach to discussion is via plausible deniability, which leads to me to assume you're not interested in intellectual honesty. And yes, "strawman" still does not mean what you want it to mean.

Have the most wonderful of days...

[SDuderstadt]

75. Dude....

your claim was that I used Ellsberg to "justify" my post.

Except, my post was "Manning is no Ellsberg". If I was trying to "justify" my post, it would look like this:

Ellsberg did xyz.
Manning did xyz.
Therefore, Manning is just like Ellsberg.

Apparently, you have trouble with reading comprehension. And, you mischaracterized my statement, then tried to argue against the mischaracterization. That is a strawman, dude.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

33. Yeah...

What does he know about the Pentagon Papers case, anyway? :)

[liberation]

50. ...Not as much as the previous poster obviously

duuuuuh.

[Hissyspit]

11. Yeah. They have different first names.

Oh, and different last names, too.

[SDuderstadt]

15. And one leaked a higher level report...

classified at a different level, while the other one stole raw intelligence and diplomatic cables.

Not even in the same league.

[bahrbearian]

18. Looks like you declared him guilty without a trial too.

[SDuderstadt]

22. There is no dispute about what I just posted...

that was a recitation of known fact.

That is not "declaring him guilty". Please.

[bahrbearian]

30. Please , its all hearsay

[SDuderstadt]

38. It is not...

"hearsay".

You might want to look up the definition.

[bahrbearian]

39. Is too, where are you getting you Ideas, from what other people say.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Same place you are...

You seem to think all verbal statements are "hearsay".

[liberation]

49. "You seem to think all verbal statements are "hearsay"."

... Seriously?

[SDuderstadt]

56. Read their post n/t

[bahrbearian]

63. Read your post , you supply no evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Jesus...

do you think that is the definition of "hearsay"?

[liberation]

72. Woooooooooooossssshhhhhhhhh

Once again.

Hint: what is the definition of hearsay?


LOL

[SDuderstadt]

81. I can't believe we have to have this discussion...

I'll explain this to you using a hypothetical bank robbery. Pay attention so I don't have to explain this again, dude.

Prosecutor: "What did you say to the defendant when he was standing at the teller window?". Officer: "I said, "Put up your hands. You're under arrest.". Not hearsay, because the witness has direct knowledge of what he said.

Prosecutor: "What did the officer say to the defendant when he was standing at your teller window?". Teller: "He said, 'Put up your hands. You're under arrest'.". Not hearsay because the witness has direct knowledge of what the officer said.

Prosecutor: "What did the officer say to the defendant when he was standing at the teller window?". Bank customer: "Well, I was not there, but I heard later that he said, 'Put your hands up. You're under arrest'.". Hearsay, because the witness has no direct knowledge of what the officer said.

In a debate, one can certainly rely on the statements of others. How could one have a debate unless all the participants have direct knowledge of an event otherwise? That isn't hearsay.

Does that clear it up for you?

[bahrbearian]

84. No, not at all, They are testifying to 1st hand accounts,, you are relying on heresy.

When evidence is presented in court, by a witness that is evidence, reading something or reporting an account of something that may have happened without 1st hand account, is heresy. You claim someone is guilty without evidence , what is that Sharia Law?

[SDuderstadt]

85. It's called a discussion forum...

You also need to educate yourself as to the meaning of "heresy".

P.S. The third example I provided was not a firsthand account and is hearsay.

[bahrbearian]

87. We should just convict people because of a Discussion Forum?

You need to educate your self with the Law.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Can you point to where I am trying to...

"convict" Manning? You express your opinion. I express mine.

That is how a discussion forum works.

[tekisui]

37. One released a geater volume of lies and war crimes.

A true patriot. A hero.

[stockholmer]

32. your correct, Manning wasn't a CIA asset, nor worked for Rand Corp, etc

Much of what was the information in the Pentagon Papers was already published in several European newspapers (was nothing of import in the Pentagon papers which a reader of 'LeMonde' in France or 'Corriere della Sera' in Italy had not already encountered). IMHO it was a CIA Op to transfer war blame onto the Pentagon, and divert attention away from their drug dealing ops and war crims in SE Asia. Morton Halperin and Leslie Gelb were instrumental in compiling them, and they reek of a limited, sanitized hangout.

http://www.topsecretplay.org/index.php/content/documents

(TopSecretPlay, sponsored by the USC Annenberg Center for Communication Leadership, is a resource page supporting productions of Top Secret: The Battle for the Pentagon Papers, a docudrama by Geoffrey Cowan and Leroy Aarons)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine03082003.html

Will the Real Daniel Ellsberg Please Stand Up!
The Clash of the Icons
By DOUGLAS VALENTINE

Political activist Daniel Ellsberg became an icon in 1971 after he leaked The Pentagon Papers. This "act of conscience" helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam War, and contributed to the demise of President Richard Nixon, whose felonious minions, the infamous Plumbers, sent CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, and former FBI agent (and self-professed rat-eater) G. Gordon Liddy, to burglarize confidential files from Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Hunt and Liddy thought they could trump the anti-War movement by showing that Ellsberg was a mentally deranged LSD-abuser, but their slap-happy plan backfired, and instead opened up the Pandora's box of the CIA inspired dirty tricks the Republican Party relied upon (and still uses today) to wage political warfare.

Starting on March 9th, the Pentagon Papers story will be broadcast as a made-for-TV movie on the popular F/X network. Based partially on Ellsberg's autobiography, the movie will star quirky James Spader as Ellsberg, and will feature Hayley Lochner as "the wife," Jonas Chernick as CIA connected New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and Paul Giamatti as Anthony Russo, the man who went to prison on Ellsberg's behalf.

Be forewarned: nowhere in this revisionist history will be audience be presented with the cast of Corsican drug smugglers and CIA agents that shaped Ellsberg's sensibilities and sent him on his path to New Left notoriety. But as the reader shall see in this article, somewhere between the official Pentagon Papers story, and the CIA's involvement in international drug trafficking, is a disturbing clash of facts from which Ellsberg will not emerge with his icon status intact.....................................

[2banon]

82. Fascinating Article.

I haven't read this level of detail into Ellsberg's Intelligence background and wrt to drug and black operations in Vietnam. I think the author carefully laid out the history in terms of what is known, what is unknown or unclear, and the many questions still to be answered, as is so often the case with our extremely convaluted history and the effects of carefully crafted deceptions, revisionisms and so forth. I also appreciate how the author reminds the reader of how deception or slight of hand is the agencies stock in trade and that it must be kept in mind as one attempt to make sense of this history.

:thumbsup:

[frylock]

34. take it up with daniel ellsberg..

he would disagree.

[2banon]

70. Daniel Ellsberg would disagree..

Daniel Ellsberg considers Manning a hero and holds Manning in high regard..

Ellsberg has committed civil disobedience for Manning's release, intentionally getting arrested on Manning's behalf. Has been quite outspoken on this matter.

[GOTV]

4. No need for a trial I guess - Obama has declared him guilty. Now that's efficiency!

[tekisui]

8. Makes sense. He's already authorized a hit of an American citizen

without trial.

[Qutzupalotl]

10. I thought Manning confessed.

He still deserves a trial, but I think a judge will have to toss his whistleblower defense and just focus on the release of classified intel. Not saying I agree with that, just that I think that will happen.

[Hissyspit]

12. Um...

Someone said he confessed.

You know, as in: accused.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. Ah. Okay, thanks.

I haven't followed it as closely as many here. I thought the details of the Britney Spears CDs were straight from his mouth, but I'll take your word I was wrong.

[Hissyspit]

27. The details were straight from a transcript.

that may or may not be real.

Yes, he probably did it, but that's not the point. We have no validation of that and there has been no trial. The President seems in much too much of a hurry to have him already convicted pre-trial.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. There's nothing to talk about at this point.

The Commander In Chief just declared Manning guilty.

There is no way he can receive a fair military trial.

Someone should sit Mr. Constitutional Scholar down and explain why the chief of the armed forces shouldn't weigh in on a matter placed before his SUBORDINATES for adjudication.

[Scuba]

41. Bingo!!!!!

[Ignis]

78. ^^^ This.

[KansDem]

79. From August 4, 1970--

Nixon Calls Manson Guilty; Attorneys Move a Mistrial

President Nixon may have freed Charles Manson-not by an act of executive clemency, but by one of errant stupidity.

Defense attorneys for Manson, Leslie Van Houten, and Susan Atkins-who face charges of murder stemming from the mass killings last August of actress Sharon Tate and six other persons-moved for a mistrial yesterday after learning that Nixon had said that Manson was "guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason."

........

Although the jury in the Manson trial is kept sequestered in a hotel and denied access to newspaper accounts of the trials, attorneys expressed concern that they might learn of the President's remarks through visits from relatives.

--more--
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/8/4/nixon-calls-manson-guilty-attorneys-move/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JFWQ-zB-Sys/TDPkjYqi3BI/AAAAAAAAAGE/mh0-Z_ALbWs/S220/Manson+guilty+Nixon+declares+-+newspaper.png

I believe Manson held up this edition of the LA Times for the jurists to see, in essence, prejudicing them. As I recall, a circus atmosphere permeated the trial...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

104. It's even worse in a military trial. I forget the specific phrase for a superior officer ...

.... prejudicing subordinate judges but it's a no no.

[Duppers]

105. OMG, yes !

Get this to Rachael.

[Schema Thing]

6. So did you when you smoked pot.

Will Bradley Manning have a path to the presidency after his civil disobedience?

[Enrique]

65. not to mention cocaine n/t

[Autumn]

7. Peons break the law. Powerful people are protected

by the president. Hell of a law professor.

[stockholmer]

9. laws? we don't need no stinking laws (or trials apparently), nice to see a so-called constitutional

professor with such a commanding knowledge of basic jurisprudence.

:thumbsdown:

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

----Sir Thomas More from ' A Man for All Seasons '


edited to correct grammar

[Drale]

17. Don't we all do this from time to time?

For instance OJ, everyone knew he was guilty yet the jury found him not guilty.

PS. I believe OJ was guilty as hell.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. "We" aren't the Commander In Chief - The boss of the people who will judge this MILITARY trial.

If your O.J. analogy were to be correct. It would be Judge Ito's boss, the Chief judge, making a declarative statement that OJ is guilty. See the difference?

[shellgame26]

35. Manning is subject to UCMJ

Anyone who has ever been in the military understands this. I would really like to know what it is everyone thinks the president should do...

[sulphurdunn]

40. The President should insist that

the UCMJ be applied to Bradley Manning. Nothing in the UCMJ of which I'm aware permits indefinite detention in solitary confinement in lieu of bringing a case to trial.

[shellgame26]

45. Are you kidding me?

In the military you can go to jail for not showing up for work! And is that what all these protests are about? That Barack Obama should insist that UCMJ be applied? Really?

Do you know how many people are incarcerated for various reasons under UCMJ? SHould we all rally around their causes too?

I think it's apparent that too many people have adopted Manning as some sort of left-wing hero.............which he's not.....without thinking things through.

[sulphurdunn]

107. No, I'm not.

There are procedures under the UCMJ for locking people up. I have attached a couple of links you might wish to peruse regarding how that should be handled.

I am of the opinion that after the duration and terms of Manning's confinement the prosecution is avoiding bringing him to trial because they fear their case will be thrown out. Indefinite incarceration without trial is not about left or right politics. It is clear violation of the UCMJ, the Constitution and every treaty on human rights to which the US is a signatory.

The President is both the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and head of state. It is his specific responsibility to see that the laws of the United States are enforced. He is clearly not doing that, nor has any President for some time. That is a much bigger problem of which Manning is merely a symbol. God only knows how many people are rotting in American military prisons without benefit of due process because they are not American citizens, whose names have never been divulged to the International Red Cross or to their governments. That ought to scare the hell out of both of us.

Article 10, UCMJ: RESTRAINT OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENSES:

Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.


http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB3.htm

http://court-martial.com/ucmj-pretrial-restraint/

[stockholmer]

43. he should not make asinine statements proclaiming guilt before trial(unless the US wants to make...

the President the head judge as well. The office of the President already seems to have usurped the Congressional powers to a large degree.

Hell, just make the next POTUS dictator. Call him or her the 'Head of the Homeland'.

The Roman Republic eventually went this route, 'for the good of the State'. The US surely seems to be treading in these well-worn historical footsteps (empiric wars that are bankrupting you, widespread, deep-rooted financial corruption for the top, stripping away of civil rights, and a massive increase in slave populations- Rome physical slaves, the US debt-peonage slaves).



:banghead:

[shellgame26]

47. Please stop talking in slogans

and try to think this through without involving your emotions.
To expect the president to usurp UCMJ just to appease a small group who have taken up Manning's cause IS EXPECTING THE PRESIDENT TO BE A DICTATOR.

Are you prepared to take up the cause of others wrongly convicted under UCMJ??? Because if you are, you better quit your job and start working on that now because there are plenty. And it has nothing to do with Obama or Bush or Clinton. UCMJ is UCMJ and when you are in the military they let you know EVERYDAY that YOU ARE NOT A CIVILIAN AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO CIVILIAN LAWS.

[stockholmer]

53. not slogans, UCMJ DOES have "presumption of innocence", the President & you are simply dead wrong

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IIIE2.htm

The presumption of innocence is a longstanding feature of both military and civilian law; it is a critical part of our tradition of justice and deeply imbedded in our culture as well as our systems of justice; as reflected in the language of Article 51(c)(1), UCMJ, the presumption of innocence is directly related to the requirement that guilt be established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; put another way, the presumption of innocence embodies the principle that one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial).


http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-51.htm

UCMJ Article 51 (c)(1)

(c) Before a vote is taken of the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them--

(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;





http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2003Term/02-0609.htm a case citing this

[shellgame26]

59. so now the issue is that he made an off the cuff remark?

Is that what the protests are about? Please tell me what EXACTLY you would like the president to do.

[stockholmer]

61. I already said what he should do in my post that you first replied to

'Off-the-cuff' comments typically show true underlying world outlooks and assumptions that an individual holds. And how 'off-the-cuff' can it be, as Obama was surrounded by press with cams and recorders and pens and ears and eyes?

If you were locked in a jail cell, accused of exposing say, a housing kickback scandal in NYC (via photo-copied docs you took w/o authorisation from another city dept.), I'm sure you would not have your cockles warmed by seeing Bloomberg on telly calling you guilty.

[shellgame26]

67. has he been found guilty?

And is the president's remark going to determine if he's found guilty?
And actually you never specified what action it is the president is to take. All you said was that he should stop making assinine statements. I want to know what EXECUTIVE action you and others are expecting from the president on this issue.
Because aside from this just being another rallying point to bash the president I'm not sure if the protesters are even clear on what they want.

[stockholmer]

73. the simple non-utterance of pronouncements of guilt IS an executive act, (of temperament)

[shellgame26]

76. but it will not actually determine what will happen to the accused

So just like you, the president can be allowed to have an opinion right? Especially when he's being sandbagged at a fundraiser.

[liberation]

54. Speaking of slogans...

[frylock]

36. fuck this shit

really.

[stockholmer]

57. I'm with you, lol (if no laugh, the tears come)

:beer:

[Robb]

46. So we all seem to agree Manning probably "did it," whatever that entails...

...and we all agree Obama shouldn't have said as much out loud.

It is a pleasure to see so much harmony on such a contentious issue. :D

[stockholmer]

55. I do not believe that he alone, as a lowly PFC, had that kind of access, to so many different docs

from so many departments, etc.

If he did, that truly should be cause for concern that one entry-level clerk has the ability to compromise so much of the entire US infrastructure.

I do not buy this for a second.

[stevenleser]

91. A very quick internet search will show you why he did have access to those documents. n/t

[stockholmer]

102. a very quick internet serch will also find Bulgarian wedding photos, porn, and Easter eggs

Maybe all 3 combined. I still ain't buying it.

[stevenleser]

103. Hey, if you want to stay ignorant of the facts that everyone else on both sides accepts, be my guest

You are the only one on either side of the Manning argument who is trying to argue that he didnt have access to these documents. That part is not in dispute by anyone other than you at this point.

So I guess what I am saying is, you can continue being willfully ignorant of the facts that everyone else accepts, even those who are vehemently fighting for Manning's aquittal and release, or you can get educated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Manning

It was his job to have access to a centralized clearinghouse of information called SIPRNet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

[JJW]

64. Obama gets an "F" in Constitional Law

Everyone including Bradley Manning are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. With the President statements, it becomes perhaps impossible to get a fair trial in the US for Bradley Manning.

Sorry Obama, you are not the "decider".

[Enrique]

66. what happened to "let's look forward, not back"

or does that only apply to torturers and illegal wiretappers.

[liberation]

74. Yeah, I am confused. I thought the video was going to show Obama making a plea to look forward

Alas... not in this case, apparently.

We are apparently a nation of men, not laws. Something that should be fairly obvious to any constitutional scholar, obviously.

[Sky Masterson]

69. I agree with him

Manning did break the law.
And he should pay.

[Hissyspit]

83. 1. You don't know that.

2. The President doesn't know that.
3. The President shouldn't be prejudicing Manning's proceedings.

[Sky Masterson]

86. So you are saying that he is innocent of what he is accused of doing?

If he didn't steal and release these classified documents then we need to do a witch hunt and find the guilty culprit who did.
And also find and prosecute the person who turned Manning in to a patsy.That is if he is innocent.
I'm seriously not trying to be an ass about this.
I just disagree with the free Manning/torture crowd.

[Hissyspit]

93. No, I am saying he is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted

ESPECIALLY with regards to how someone as powerful as the President speaks about it.

And the accused has the right to defend themselves and speak toward their actions AND their motivations and to question the laws under which they presumably acted, IF they did indeed do the actions, in a court of law, no matter who the President happens to be.

[SDuderstadt]

94. As President and Commander-in-Chief...

Obama is essentially acting in the role of Plaintiff/Complainant. Why people are outraged that he would hold the position that the defendant broke the law and deserves punishment is, frankly, puzzling. Why else would charges have been brought against Manning otherwise"?

Of course, I've come to expect just this from DU's shoot-first, ask-questions-later brigade.

[Hissyspit]

95. I am hardly shooting first and asking later on this.

And frankly the Obama administration's hypocrisy on whistleblowers vis a vis the original rhetoric on the issue has been profoundly, profoundly disappointing (yes, I do realize that it is the Rethugs who have held up reinstatement of the federal whistleblower protection law). CIC is NOT his only job and role, and even complainants can keep their mouth shut in public about a case.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Manning is a "whistle-blower" who broke...

a very serious law. If you think Obama, as CIC, should applaud the theft and indiscriminate dissemination of raw intelligence and diplomatic cables, I respectfully disagree.

P.S. I just happened to respond to your post. I hardly think you are a "brigade" unto yourself.

[Sky Masterson]

97. This is where I'm at on this.

.

[ReggieVeggie]

92. How about Daniel Ellsberg?

would you have said the same about his leaks?

[Sky Masterson]

98. He is not Daniel Ellsberg

.

[stockholmer]

101. glad you're not cop or in this cse, an MP, no constitution or UCMJ for you, eh?

[JDPriestly]

80. So, this is getting interesting.

Obama states that he cannot reveal secrets because he is bound by the law.

But, someone in the Bush administration betrayed a secret -- the CIA affiliation of Valerie Plame and was not sent to Quantico or to Leavenworth. Now, why does the law against revealing secrets in violation of the law apply to Obama and to Bradley Manning but not to the person in the Bush administration who betrayed the secrets about Valerie Plame?

I'm glad that Obama didn't work as a defense attorney. He is correct about the legal rule and the fact that the law applies to everyone equally. But as president he has not enforced the law against everyone equally. And this is up to him. He appointed the Attorney General and sets the general guidelines for the Attorney General's work. If Obama really emphasized the idea that ours is a government of laws and not men, his Attorney General Holder would be prosecuting the criminals from the Bush administration and from Wall Street.

Another bit of hot air from the mouth of Obama.

[HolyCity2012]

90. WHO WANTS TO ARGUE!

GOD DAMNIT!

[DeSwiss]

99. Correction Mr. President.....

"What he did was he (allegedly) dumped…"


- Nation of laws my ass.........

K&R

[WillyT]

100. K & R !!!

:kick:

[xchrom]

106. recommend

[big lu]

108. K&R