|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:36 AM Original message |
The Obama admin/military accused Manning of "breaking the law",.. on July 5th, 2010. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ramulux (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:43 AM Response to Original message |
1. Where is the evidence? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:48 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Where is your evidence that anyone lied? Talk about throwing stones at glass houses. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:51 AM Response to Reply #1 |
3. huh? I don't see how it's a fact that he's not broken any laws |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Historic NY (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 08:34 AM Response to Reply #3 |
25. charges & specifications UCMJ......its military law & his trial is courts martial. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 11:07 AM Response to Reply #25 |
38. I don't think anyone's confused. But since Obama is CIC, hasn't he muddied the waters for Manning |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Historic NY (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 08:40 PM Response to Reply #38 |
60. Really no more than the defense attorney or prosecutor....perhaps a gag order should be in place. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:55 AM Response to Original message |
4. Try this... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:02 AM Response to Reply #4 |
6. Utterly irrelevant to this situation in every single way. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:13 AM Response to Reply #6 |
10. You may benefit from re-reading what I posted. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:15 AM Response to Reply #10 |
11. That isn't a contradiction at all. The Obama administration is indeed charging Manning, and yet |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:21 AM Response to Reply #11 |
12. I didn't argue that the President can't acknowledge a "charge". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:24 AM Response to Reply #12 |
14. There is no difference than charging someone with breaking the law and saying it. None. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:34 AM Response to Reply #14 |
18. I didn't claim there's a difference between "charging someone with breaking the law and saying it". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:43 AM Response to Reply #18 |
20. LOL -- after your total fail with your completely inapplicable link, you are now blaming him for not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 08:48 AM Response to Reply #20 |
28. How is a link about about poisoning the jury pool inapplicable? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:22 AM Response to Reply #10 |
13. Complaining about caps isn't helping you divert attention away from your invalid argument. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:28 AM Response to Reply #13 |
16. My point about your screaming was made after a bit of substance I thought you might consider. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:30 AM Response to Reply #16 |
17. The link you posted only explains why the actual prosecutor in the given case should refrain from |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:42 AM Response to Reply #17 |
19. Perhaps. But we do have the OP arguing otherwise. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:51 AM Response to Reply #19 |
21. The OP is not arguing otherwise. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 08:50 AM Response to Reply #21 |
29. That it is Obama's prosecutor is precisely the among arguments the OPer is making. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 09:42 AM Response to Reply #29 |
31. Thread checked, You are still wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 11:10 AM Response to Reply #31 |
39. Perhaps you missed the OP which you posted. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:50 PM Response to Reply #39 |
54. Um, yea. Still wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NavyDem (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:59 AM Response to Original message |
5. Wait... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:04 AM Response to Reply #5 |
7. Its more like, you press charges against me for stealing your car... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NavyDem (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:05 AM Response to Reply #7 |
8. And then... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:07 AM Response to Reply #8 |
9. I don't know. I'm totally lost at this point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:28 AM Response to Reply #9 |
15. Deleted message |
shellgame26 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 09:51 PM Response to Reply #5 |
61. Don't try to use logic |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NavyDem (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 10:45 PM Response to Reply #61 |
62. I think you've confused me |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Smarmie Doofus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 05:50 AM Response to Original message |
22. Damage control?. Lotsa luck. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hobbit709 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 05:58 AM Response to Original message |
23. Whether he broke the law or not is up to a court to decide. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 06:21 AM Response to Original message |
24. I hope to learn a lot Monday night. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bread_and_roses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 08:38 AM Response to Original message |
26. You said it yourself: he "CLAIMED he broke the law." Obama does not determine guilt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 09:47 AM Response to Reply #26 |
34. There is no fucking difference either way. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bread_and_roses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 12:39 PM Response to Reply #34 |
41. Yes, an accusation. NOT a determination of guilt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:41 PM Response to Reply #41 |
49. No. Its not "as if that had already been judged". That would be Obama giving him a trial right there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shellgame26 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:36 PM Response to Reply #49 |
55. YOU are the one suggesting that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shellgame26 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:26 PM Response to Reply #26 |
44. Thank you! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 08:44 AM Response to Original message |
27. The issue is how Manning is treated vs other accused persons under the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 09:45 AM Response to Reply #27 |
33. Thats not the issue of my thread. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 09:53 AM Response to Reply #33 |
35. I don't see how the separation is possible. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:40 PM Response to Reply #35 |
48. No, this would be an issue regardless of how Manning has been treated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 08:50 AM Response to Original message |
30. You are conflating the President's opinion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 09:45 AM Response to Reply #30 |
32. You aren't making any sense. You are just trying to find a way to say "fail". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 09:57 AM Response to Reply #32 |
36. 837. ARTICLE 37. Unlawfully influencing action of court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 11:03 AM Response to Reply #36 |
37. I'm kicking precisely for your link EFerrari. This is what confuses me. Since Obama is CIC |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:49 PM Response to Reply #37 |
52. Yea, I told you it would be laughed right of the courts and I'm still laughing at how absurd your... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalun D (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 11:18 PM Response to Reply #52 |
64. Here's Where Your Argument Falls Apart |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recovered Repug (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 11:37 AM Response to Reply #36 |
40. Just out of curiosity, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:20 PM Response to Reply #40 |
42. I won't speak for EFerrari, but for me it's right in section a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NavyDem (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:31 PM Response to Reply #42 |
45. Ok. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:36 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. If your commanding officer has already pronounced guilt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NavyDem (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:49 PM Response to Reply #47 |
53. Did the President |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 02:53 PM Response to Reply #53 |
56. No, he did not threaten at all. But articulating his guilty judgement |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NavyDem (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 03:26 PM Response to Reply #56 |
57. I think |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recovered Repug (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:34 PM Response to Reply #42 |
46. Except there are a couple of items that need to be considered. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:45 PM Response to Reply #46 |
50. I really appreciate this. I really am trying to figure this out so any feedback is great. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recovered Repug (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 05:02 PM Response to Reply #50 |
58. I believe that Obama has not violated the letter or the spirit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:46 PM Response to Reply #36 |
51. Which is exactly the argument my OP banished into oblivion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 07:29 PM Response to Reply #51 |
59. As I said earlier, you are conflating the normal operation of the courts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ReggieVeggie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 01:23 PM Response to Reply #32 |
43. how droll |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalun D (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-24-11 10:51 PM Response to Original message |
63. OP SUPER FAILS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 12:30 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC