If the President declares someone guilty of a crime,

[mmonk]

can that person receive a fair trial in the US, either military or civilian? Is mistreatment in pretrial detention Constitutional? Has there been enough damage to still declare any trial that now comes forth is a fair one?

[originalpckelly]

1. Obama doesn't care about the US Constitution.

He, like all other modern US Presidents, is making this shit up as he goes along.

[closeupready]

42. Which is odd in that he claimed to be a constitutional law scholar. 'Aren't we all?' would be my

retort.

[KoKo]

2. President Obama Makes a Fair Trial of Bradley Manning Impossible By Declaring Him Guilty

President Obama Makes a Fair Trial of Bradley Manning Impossible By Declaring Him Guilty
By: KevinZeese Monday April 25, 2011 10:04 am

TweetTweet134
digg stumbleupon

The “Bradley Manning Exception to the Bill of Rights” Devastates the Credibility of the Military Justice System

By Kevin Zeese

The credibility of the military justice system is being undermined by the prosecution of Bradley Manning. His abusive punishment without trial violates his due process rights; his harsh treatment in solitary confinement-torture conditions violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and now the commander-in-chief has announced his guilt before trial making a fair trial impossible. A Bradley Manning exception to the Bill of Rights is developing as the Obama administration seeks Manning’s punishment no matter what constitutional protections they violate.

On Thursday April 21, 2011 in San Francisco a group of Bradley Manning supporters protested the prosecution of Manning at a Barack Obama fundraising event. One of Manning’s supporters was able to question the president directly afterwards and during the conversation, Obama said on videotape that Manning was guilty.

Can you imagine if the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamene’i, pronounced an Iranian military whistle blower “guilty” before any trial was held? Khamene’i is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces in Iran, just as President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed services. Would anyone in the United States think that a trial before Iranian military officers that followed such a pronouncement could be fair? The U.S. government would use the situation to make propaganda points about the phony justice system in Iran.

MUCH MORE AT.......

http://my.firedoglake.com/kevinzeese/2011/04/25/president-obama-makes-a-fair-trial-of-bradley-manning-impossible-by-declaring-him-guilty/

[mmonk]

5. I participated in a FireDogLake webinar conference call this evening on Manning.

Marcy Wheeler, David House, and retired Col. Ann Wright spoke to the latest concerning pfc Bradley Manning. After I review my notes, I may post some highlights sometime this week.

[KoKo]

7. Thanks for doing this, if you can post.

[NYC Liberal]

16. Khamenei giving his opinion that "an Iranian military whistle blower"

was guilty would be no worse. the US government used that to make "propaganda points," that would be wrong.

To say that because Obama voiced an opinion that everyone already knew he held now means a fair trial "impossible" is beyond absurd. If Obama had said he thought Manning was innocent, would there be such an outcry? Of course there wouldn't.

[TheKentuckian]

3. That would be a serious tainting of the pool.

I pray for chess, I guess.

[EFerrari]

4. It's not only a matter of a jury pool.

It's also a matter of everyone else involved in the trial that may have reservations about crossing the White House.

[KoKo]

8. That's what' so disturbing about him speaking out like this. Surely he should have known

he was tainting anything to do with Manning...it was surprising and concerning to see a President who is a Constitutional Lawyer from Harvard behave like this.

[mmonk]

13. I'm wondering what if any repercussions will come from it?

Public pressure both domestically and internationally may have been a major factor in the move to a different facility.

[KoKo]

15. Doesn't seem to be much concern ...except on the

sites that are working for truth and exposure of info. Maybe closer to election time some more folks will speak out...but by that time it will be "Repugs" who are using it against us Dems..even though we aren't a part of it...but our own President is.

Either way...not good thing, imho..

[mmonk]

38. I'm not sure they could use this against him.

I'm pretty sure their followers believe any classified revelations, especially any that reveal American misconduct in the world, should be punished very harshly.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Maybe the 11th Dimension Chess Player wanted to throw the

game and uttered words intended to 'throw the game' and force a mis-trial?

Just sayin'. As much as I have lost faith in Obama and what he and his cohort represent, I still believe he's really sharp. Why would someone as sharp as he is utter words designed to taint the jury pool and prejudice the proceedings, unless said smart one really wanted to see Manning released?

[KoKo]

27. That could be it...but, still, why would he put himself out there on the "record" saying that?

It would have been smarter just to stay out of it and let his Attorney General Holder handle it.

Still, I always have hope that he will surprise us. But, why would any President want to get caught up in something causing a "mis-trial" and have the RW go after him about it like they will? Obama doesn't usually like to be seen as anything that looks like he's taking a stand for something confrontational like this.

I don't know. I guess we could hope.

[coalition_unwilling]

28. It's actually a Machiavellian move befitting Machiavelli himself. Consider this:

Pentagon and power elite want Wikileaks, Assange and Manning silenced. Power elite willing to see manning tortured to achieve its ends.

Obama wants transparency but does not want to confront the power elite.

Uttering words that cause a mis-trial will allow Obama to 'have his cake and eat it too'. He can say to the right wing, "I can't believe they let Manning go on a technicality" when that was his secret intention all along, to create the very technicality that would force Manning's release. He and the RW can bond over the issue of judicial activism letting scofflaws go on technicalities, while preserving and protecting the Constitution as he is sworn to do.

Not saying that's what went down, but it sure would be nice if it were so.

[BadGimp]

6. ahhh

hell n9

[NYC Liberal]

9. Are you saying nobody knew what Obama's position

on the matter was?

[EFerrari]

34. The abuse of Bradley Manning and the stalking of Julian Assange

have made Obama's position very clear.

But we're supposed to pretend there is still a chance that Manning will get a fair trial.

It is a little comical but, there it is.

[mmonk]

39. I don't believe that was a claim in my op. My op was centered

around questions concerning due process.

[Sky Masterson]

10. Whatever

The more that these stupid ass threads pop up the less sympathy I have for the Manning Cause..
You guys act like Obama committed some grave crime that far overshadows your Hero whistle-blowers crime..
:puke:

[izquierdista]

12. I guess you weren't around

When Nixon almost gave Charles Manson a get out of jail free card.

[Sky Masterson]

14. Manson never actually killed anyone

;)

[Sonoman]

18. Nor did he encourage same.

Whatever this

;)

means...

Sonoman

[mmonk]

17. I more concerned on the repercussions of tossing away all legal

precedence and pretext to protocol. Is there really any worth in our so called rule of law anymore? Or is it the purview of American Presidents now to give thumbs up or thumbs down like a Roman Emperor? Is there any precedent?

[Bluebear]

24. An internet thread is making me support Manning less!!!!11

[Sky Masterson]

35. No

An internet thread is making me realize how silly and annoying folks can be

[Ignis]

50. Which folks?

[Bluebear]

23. Who gives a crap about who you're sympathic towards?

:puke:

[Sky Masterson]

36. Who gives a crap about a whistleblowing traitor

:puke:

[Bandit]

40. Obviously you believe we should just skip any trial and hang him

Everyone knows beyond any shadow of doubt Manning is a traitor so hang him.. No need for any trials that is sooo yesterday.. This is the new America under Obama where one man can determione guilt or innocence without any evidence presented either way..It doesn't matter though because Liberals "have no where else to go".....

[Sky Masterson]

45. I don't believe that at all.

I'm just sick of the Pro-Manning Jihad being fought here. I wish people would just give it a fucking rest.
He committed a crime whether you agree with the results or not and It annoys me that people are so fast to forgive his acts while jumping all over one statement from Pres. Obama.

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. I really can't believe the backs that are turning on Manning all because

a president that was blasted to ridiculous heights is far less than they claim him to be. I never thought DU would stoop so low as to defend politicians only because they have a D after their name. :( I'm with you in the nausea Bluebear.

[izquierdista]

11. Oh, sure, sure he can

[MilesColtrane]

19. "can that person receive a fair trial in the US, either military or civilian?"

That depends on the rules of the trial, who is in charge of running it, and whether the President's statement specifically has prejudiced the jury.

In this case the court-martial has not been convened yet. We don't know who the panel of judges will be.

Logically, the officers who will be presiding over Bradley Manning's court-martial would presume that the President thinks he is guilty, even if he never said it, simply because the President is the commander of the prosecuting authority. (The Army)

However, under revamped Pentagon rules for military tribunals the presiding officers will be under direct orders to presume Manning's innocence.

[mmonk]

20. Do rules of the trial take into account matters such as mistreatment

in pretrial detention? Or is that and a Presidential declaration of guilt superfluous to any proceedings?

[NavyDem]

21. That would be approached

via different avenue. An article 138 complaint would be filed and would have to be ruled on. Manning's attorney already filed a 138 complaint. It has yet to be ruled on as far as I know.

[mmonk]

22. Thanks for your reply. I was told a complaint was filed.

As someone who's expertise is not military law, could you tell me the process?

[NavyDem]

26. I'm not well versed with 138 complaints, but

from what I've read, the base commander at Quantico had to rule on it first, and then it is reviewed by higher authority. I think (but not sure) the Army court of appeals is the next stop. After that, I'm unsure. I do know that if there is any thought that the court martial proceedings result in a conviction on other than the facts, that the appeal process can go as high as the US Supreme court.

[mmonk]

32. Then it will probably go to an appeals process based on what I

heard about the base commander this evening.

[MilesColtrane]

33. "Do rules of the trial take into account matters such as mistreatment..."

Not from what I've read, unless mistreatment (AKA torture) was used to extract a confession from Manning, and that confession was presented as evidence of guilt by the prosecution.

"Is...a Presidential declaration of guilt superfluous to any proceedings?"

Since the trial won't be conducted in the civilian court system with a jury, and unless it can be proven by the defense that Obama is directly coercing the judging officers, his statement about Manning's guilt should have no effect on the outcome of the trial.

[mmonk]

37. I was wondering because the mistreatment has upset

some in the military.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Can the average American even name the SOS?

I don't think many Americans know who Manning is or what President Obama says.

[NavyDem]

30. I think that might be irrelevant.

Manning will not be tried by average Americans. He'll be tried by military officers and senior enlisted personnel. They usually (but not always) know who Manning is as well as the SOS.

[ZombieHorde]

31. Doh! You're right; I'm wrong. nt

[white_wolf]

41. Well there is one example of this happening.

The Manson trials. Nixon declared him guilty and the paper's headlines read "Manson guilty, Nixon declares." Manson is still in prison and will likely die there. Of course, the cases are completely different. I'm not at all comparing Manning to Manson, just pointing out the only example I can think of.

[mmonk]

47. Thanks.

[JoePhilly]

43. 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Huh?

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.

[mmonk]

48. Basically if there is pretrial damage to the rights of the accused,

will it still be carried out as if the trial was fair and in accordance with standing legal standards.

[JoePhilly]

49. Yes, it will.

And the reason is because there are multiple events, and you can separate them. I'll use an extreme example to make this point.

Let's say you murder a cop in broad day light. Shortly before the murder, you tell some other people you plan to do it. Then you actually do it. And it's caught on tape. The tape is very clear. Its clearly you. And the officer does nothing to cause you to kill them. So they arrest you. You are detained in a rather boring manner. There is a trial. You are found guilty. And you get the death penalty.

Now ... let's change a detail.

Let's say you murder a cop in broad day light. Shortly before the murder, you tell some other people you plan to do it. Then you actually do it. And it's caught on tape. The tape is very clear. Its clearly you. And the officer does nothing to cause you to kill them. So they arrest you. You are detained and the cops beat the crap out of you. The cops beat a confession out of you. There is a trial. You are found guilty. And you get the death penalty.

In the second case, the confession won't be admissible. But all other evidence will be admissible. And, sorry to say, but the fact that the cops beat the crap out of you does not negate any of the other evidence. You might have a case against those cops. But the fact that they kicked your butt does not remove ANY of the other evidence against you (other than the confession).

Now ... there are other "rights" one might be able to use to suppress certain evidence ... but from what I know in THIS case, no rights were suppressed in the gathering of evidence. In other words, the government had the legal authority to collect the evidence it collected. They did not beat a confession out of Manning.

And I don't think I've heard anyone make that claim.

[WatsonT]

44. It does seem like that would prejudice the jury

Good reason for the POTUS to stay out of legal matters.

[upi402]

46. Not really. Another huge fail from a Harvard lawyer.

uhhh
Bush was a Yale man right?....

Jesus, give a community college educated politician already!