It bothers me when a constitutional expert (Obama) declares non-judicated "broke the law"...

[HardWorkingDem]

I'm sorry, but one thing that is starting to bother me about Pres. Obama is his willingness to be politically expedient regarding controversial issues and topics. He is supposedly a constitutional law expert/teacher, but declared a person (Bradley Manning) who has yet to be adjudicated as having broke the law.

I feel if Pres Obama was faced with a challenger, one area he would be extremely vulnerable in is that of human rights and possibly deservedly so.

[enough]

1. It was one of those "If George Bush had done that" moments for me.

If GWB had said that, I would have been shaking my head and saying -- it just goes to prove how little respect and understanding he has for the law and for his own position. I find it almost incredible that Barack Obama said that.

[tavalon]

2. I've had more than a few of those moments in the last two years.

[vaberella]

14. Hardly. It wouldn't have bugged me if Bush had said it.

But I don't adamantly hate and despise the man as some others on here.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Expand on the things you like about Bush better than 'some here'

What are the specifics of those feelings toward Bush? Do tell.

[vaberella]

29. Let's be clear, I never stated I liked Bush. I stated I didn't hate him.

I think he's a comical puppet who basically handed control over to Cheney.As a leader he was worthless. Do I hate him for being a dimwit? Unfortunately, I can't hate the stupid. What I find by some people---is that he's the evil incarnate. I always found Cheney to be the most problematic.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Isn't that in and of itself, "illegal". Manning might want to consider a case. n/t

[treestar]

4. He can have an opinion like anyone else

In fact, he's the prosecutor, ultimately, no?

This is grasping at straws. The system will decide, and if they decide differently than Obama would have, then he'll still accept the verdict.

[tekisui]

7. It was just a stupid thing to say.

And, yes. Had bush said something similar, we would have fried him for it, justifiably.

[truth2power]

19. He's an officer of the court. He has no business making that statement. Geez! n/t

[Cameron27]

26. He's more than an officer

of the court, he's the CIC of all the military, & his remarks might fall under something called "Unlawful command influence (UCI)"

"One military judge colorfully described UCI as:

The mandate of United States Biagase, 50 M<.>J<.> 143 could not be more clear. Undue and unlawful command influence is the carcinoma of the military justice system, and when found, must be surgically eradicated. And this is going to be what we are about to see, the eradication of something that has shocked the conscience of this court.

See United States v. Gore, 60 M.J. 178, 184 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

In United States v. Biagase, 50 M.J. 143 (C.A.A.F. 1999) the Court held:

Once the issue of unlawful command influence is raised, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the predicate facts do not exist; or (2) that the facts do not constitute unlawful command influence; or (3) that the unlawful command influence will not prejudice the proceedings or did not affect the findings and sentence."

http://court-martial.com/unlawful-command-influence/

[dflprincess]

38. Remember when Nixon said Charlie Manson was guilty while the trial was going on?

Even John Mitchell - one of the most corrupt Attorney Generals ever - got nervous about that and the damage it might do to the case.

[immoderate]

57. Right.

He can say anything he wants. Presidents have always done this.

--imm

[Azathoth]

5. Somehow I doubt you would be upset if he remarked that Bernie Madoff "broke the law"

before Madoff was formally convicted.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Ah, but then you'd be expecting consistency in the progressive blogosphere.

Good luck with that. Remember Scooter Libby? I honestly think some wanted that guy executed, with or without a trial. I guess it depends if the accused is a "progressive" poster child that he should be afforded exceptional treatment.

[mythology]

8. To be fair that certainly tends to apply to a lot of people.

People on the right wing discussions boards would do the same if the situation were reversed.

Edited because my brain couldn't spell the word tends properly.

[Jakes Progress]

9. But the progressives are the consistent ones. The ever faithful

are the ones who twist morality. As you can see from the other parts of the thread, we progressives would and did chastise bushie for things like calling his untried prisoners guilty of terrorism. Did you think we ought to have let bush get away with such a travesty? If not, then you would be inconsistent one if you think Obama should be given a pass for the same thing.

Look up the word "consistency".

[HardWorkingDem]

10. How about the courtesy of asking before assuming....

But in a nutshell, here it is...

We on the left are supposed to have a higher ideal of civil liberties and constitutional rights. And it is my belief no matter how despicable of a person or acts a person may have committed, the exquisite thing about American jurisprudence is we are afforded protections and rights and for a constitutional scholar to make the comment he did and especially in this case, is simply wrong and apparently out of political expediency.

[Azathoth]

39. I was making an educated assumption based on some of the wild-eyed professional-leftist hypocrisy

that seems to have infested DU lately. I'll accept that your protest is entirely principled. Most of the Manning-related outrage around here, however, is motivated simply by Obama-hate and the traditional hard-left impulse to embrace anyone who attacks the USA as a hero.

As to your point -- Obama can express any opinion he wants in private conversation. Remarking to someone that Manning, who has already confessed to a crime, "broke the law" in no way violates Manning's due process rights. Being a constitutional scholar, or the President, in no way enjoins him from forming opinions and sharing them with others. Get back to me when Obama delivers a speech denouncing Manning by name, or when he signs an order instucting the military jury to return a conviction.

I repeat my contention that no one around here, except perhaps you and one or two others, would have batted an eye if Obama had made similar remarks about Madoff or Dick Cheney (had he been arrested.)

[Wilms]

12. How many banksters has he accused of breaking the law?

“However, Eric Holder the mastermind stand up guy that he is and one of Obama’s close friends, the Mr. Attorney General of these here United States of American fraud has done nothing to investigate, charge, convict or throw the CEO’s of these banks in jail. None of the banks, investment firms or the Head of the SEC have been charged with a crime.”

http://www.politicolnews.com/madoff-says-banks-knew-of-his-ponzi-scheme/

[Pirate Smile]

18. About the banksters, he said the problem was that some of the bad things they did weren't

technically against the law - which was the problem. Legislation and regulation hadn't kept up with the practices happening on Wall Street.

[Wilms]

22. That is a fair point you've raised.

Perhaps you and I would have resisted bailing them out, though, and instead immediately pushed for legislation to reel in the casino.

[Pirate Smile]

33. The problem was that we were headed into a depression without some sort of bailout.

I wish the bailout (TARP) had strings attached and requirements included which would have provided more restrictions on the Banks & given the Government a broader ability to restrict & reform them. But it was passed when Bush was still President and Paulsen was the Treasury Sect. Everyone was also in a panic so it isn't really surprising there weren't more thorough restrictions - but then I doubt the Bush Administration wanted them.

[krawhitham]

59. How many people here have said Bush broke the law?

most of us have

[phleshdef]

11. You aren't making any sense. His admin/military is the one that charged Manning with crimes.

Of COURSE their position is that he broke the law. Otherwise they wouldn't have charged him with 20+ charges of having done so. Simply stating that he broke the law is no different than charging him with breaking the law. Its not a verdict. Its a charge.

[HardWorkingDem]

58. Ooops......MSNBC, RAWSTORY.....

Guess what they are reporting?

[vaberella]

13. I don't believe they would hold the man in custody unless they had very incriminating evidence.

And the military does have it's laws and when signing into the military there are certain rights lost to you.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. So you claim that arrested always equals guilty?

The authorities are always correct, a trial is redundant, because they only arrest the guilty? An amazing thing to read on a liberal board. And you know, 'evidence' is beside the point if you reach a conclusion without hearing that evidence. "The cops must know he's guilty or they'd not have arrested him." Is that a quote from 'Letter From a Birmingham Jail'? I don' think so.

[vaberella]

31. I never stated that.

But we're in the day and age where there is massive advancement in data. Not to mention---the kid even stated he did it. I read the messages he sent to Lamo---and I'm sure the Pentagon did a trace to make sure they were legit. The court case would be the formality---but the evidence is staggering. And that's the little evidence the public has been privy too.

[sudopod]

40. You might wish to rethink that.

Check out the DU front page (as of 1:37 am EST):

WikiLeaks: Guantanamo Bay Secrets Revealed (1,000s of Pages From Ten Years)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4826044

[truth2power]

17. It was an appalling for Obama, a lawyer, to say...

Pres. Obama has also said, regarding the trial of KSM, that he would be found guilty. Trials where the defendant is determined to be guilty before having been convicted are called "show trials". You know, the kind of thing that's done in third-world countries with tin-pot dictators.

We have now entered that realm. Obama is not a constitutional scholar IMO.

I simply can't understand why people give him a pass on this sort of thing.

[EffieBlack]

20. In this instance, he is not an impartial lawyer or "officer of the court"

He is the head of the branch of government that is charging Manning with a crime. Their position is that he did indeed break the law. In this instance, the President is not an impartial observer or arbiter He is the prosecutor and, as prosecutor, it is completely appropriate for him to say that Manning broke the law.

This criticism is really grasping at straws.

[Vattel]

24. Exactly.

The prosecution always says the defendant is guilty prior to his conviction. That is what they argue in court.

[Sky Masterson]

21. It would bother me if he was innocent

It bothers me more that everyone is turning Manning in to a hero which he isn't.

[GameOn]

23. Shame I can't recommend just this post. THe guy was leaking stuff just to leak it. Breaking his oath

[karynnj]

25. I agree with you that obama's language is a problem, but disagree that a republican will challange

him on it. i think that, though many people take the word 'alleged' as perfunctory, it is important. In Manning's case, the even bigger problem is that "he broke the law" is used as justification for treatment. In a way, it is the presumption of guilt, not an an American value, that is used to justify treatment.

But, there is little chance that any on the right will support a person in the military intentionally disclosing secrets - unless a VP Cheney was behind it. Wikileaks i likely to get less support on the right than on the left. That it likely won't politically hurt him does not make it better.

[DevonRex]

27. Here's to all the MI people who did NOT break their oath and who might

be in danger because of the leaks. :applause: :toast:

[vaberella]

28. +1000. n/t

[DevonRex]

30. Thank you.

:hug:

[vaberella]

32. De nada. Even the guy who resigned b/c of Manning's treatment stated the same.

He said many MI's are in danger and possibly have been killed because of Manning's actions, so he's not condoning them. Let's just say when Cenk (he was on Cenk's show) heard that he just sort of glazed over it.

[bvar22]

37. And here is to all the people who may be saved....

...because Manning had thew courage to Blow the Whistle.
:toast:

[HardWorkingDem]

34. Some are missing the broad theme of my OP....

On one hand we have a man who has repeatedly pointed out he has taught constitutional law and has rested on the apparent and professed belief in the US jurisprudence system.

Then, on the other hand you have this same man talking and acting like an accused person has been adjudicated. Frankly, it doesn't even have to be Manning - it is the concept of a constitutional scholar declaring a person has broken a law before the person has been adjudicated.

So why? I believe it is out of political expediency. It is so easy to jump on an unpopular person instead of sticking to one's earlier professed ideals and beliefs.

Look at how the right in vilifying Saddam Hussein were able to gloss over or deflect from so many of the issues of the build up to the war in Iraq. It's like a person says, "oh, this person is a turd and no one will care in the way I flush them, so long as the person is seen negatively."

Sadly, we have examples of Obama previously doing this with the prison in Cuba and now military tribunals.

[HardWorkingDem]

35. Some are missing the intended, broader theme of my OP....

On one hand we have a man who has repeatedly pointed out he has taught constitutional law and has rested on the apparent and professed belief in the US jurisprudence system.

Then, on the other hand you have this same man talking and acting like an accused person has been adjudicated. Frankly, it doesn't even have to be Manning - it is the concept of a constitutional scholar declaring a person has broken a law before the person has been adjudicated.

My point is, to me, it's a conflict in ideals and beliefs for a constitutional scholar to declare a person guilty prior to adjudication and that is what Obama has done with his comment (not only that, he also has possibly tainted any "jury" as well).

So why? I believe it is out of political expediency. It is so easy to jump on an unpopular person instead of sticking to one's earlier professed ideals and beliefs.

Look at how the right in vilifying Saddam Hussein were able to gloss over or deflect from so many of the issues of the build up to the war in Iraq. It's like a person says, "oh, this person is a turd and no one will care in the way I flush them, so long as the person is seen negatively."

Sadly, we have examples of Obama previously doing this with the prison in Cuba and now military tribunals.

[Mimosa]

55. HardWorkingDem, I understand and appreciate your OP

If George W. Bush had declared an untried defendant guilty, D.U. would be up in arms.

[cliffordu]

36. DIdn't this kid admit it? After being read his rights??

This is an honest question, IIRC correctly that's exactly what he did.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[cliffordu]

42. Hmm...Cheerleading squad....My way or the highway, eh??

And your claim of being a wild eyed something or another really does ring true....

:hurts:

[DevonRex]

44. And the post remains on the board.

Open season on Dems I guess.

[cliffordu]

45. Kool with me. That one would be surpised at how little I care whether he's here

or not, whether he remarks on my posts.

You, however, I like.

:hi:

[DevonRex]

46. How's the elbow?

Tough guy. :)

[cliffordu]

48. Haw!!

No operation - she drained fluid out of the thing and told me to rub some dirt on it and walk it off....

No kidding - she says the bone chip will either dissolve or be encapsulated with scar tissue....they don't like cutting there because of the nerve bundles running through that area....

I have to say draining the fluid made all the difference in the world, first because one of the most beautiful young women I have ever been within 10 feet of was smiling while she hurt me so bad my eyes watered and I might have peed a little, and second because I got immediate relief from the worst part of deep ongoing pain.

I rode the bicycle for about an hour yesterday with nothing more than Ibuprofin....sore as hell today but nothing worse than a bad bruise would deliver.

Unless I touch the place where it's actually chipped. Then we gets the stars and birdies.

Of course I banged it on a doorjamb getting out of bed this morning.....

[DevonRex]

51. Hahahaha. I can just picture you trying to hold the tears

And the pee back in front of the lovely young lady. Glad you're feeling better. Do you get to go have it drained again?

[cliffordu]

52. ONLY IF I HIT IT HARD ENOUGH TO MAKE IT SWELL UP......

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

53. I know you can do it!

Make sure it's not her day off first. I'd hate for you to make it swell up for nothing. Then you'd have to do it all over again.

[DevonRex]

43. That is a personal attack and is against DU rules. Shame on you.

[dionysus]

50. messiah! rezko! cult!! pom poms!!!1!1!!!! aiaiaiaiaia

:eyes:

[paparush]

47. Interesting use of the Bully Pulpit.

So many issues over the last 2 years that Obama could make a strong statement about and this is not one I would have chosen.

[cliffordu]

49. I thought the same thing.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

54. There will be no challenger. Sorry if you got your hopes up.

[HardWorkingDem]

56. How do you get from "if" to "hopes"....?

Never did I suggest Obama should face a challenger, nor do I really want one. I was pointing out that it is pretty clear to me, IF there were one, one area I think Obama would be very vulnerable would be that of human rights/constitutional issues. And since there is NOT a challenger, I think this is why Obama feels he can be so cavalier with his comments about a person breaking the law prior to adjudication. Which in my opinion, runs contrary to his supposed ideals, teachings and past.

But let me put it to you this way to illustrate his political expediency: have you ever heard him refer to ANY of his opponents as "breaking the law" prior to adjudication in their behavior?

Now, though some may say this is just a play on words, I could accept him making a statement such as, "the person was charged with a crime because it was believed he broke the law, however, we'll have to wait until the criminal justice system finally finds him as doing so."