KUCINICH: Manning PR STUNT-"I urge the news media not to be taken in by this contrived pretension"

[kpete]

With PR Stunt on Pfc. Manning, Pentagon Offers No Answers, Only Contrivance
Posted: 04/28/11 11:42 AM ET
Dennis Kucinich


Today the Army is hosting a "Media Day" at the prison where Private First Class (Pfc.) Bradley Manning, the Army soldier accused of leaking documents to WikiLeaks, is being held. Pfc. Manning was moved to the Joint Regional Correctional Facility, Ft. Leavenworth, from the Marine Corp Brig Quantico following criticism of his treatment there which may have violated his constitution rights.

Instead of answers and accountability for the potential mistreatment of Pfc. Manning, the Department of Defense only offers fake transparency in the form of a guided tour of his new prison. Instead of responding to criticism from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Army will offer the media a scripted fantasy of Manning's brand new facility. With this stunt, it is clear that the Department of Defense and the Army are more concerned with public relations than the rights and security of Pfc. Manning.

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

I urge the news media not to be taken in by this contrived pretension of transparency. The American people rely on the news media to investigate the cover up of abuses, not tell us about the nice, new prison the Army has built.

the rest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/with-pr-stunt-on-pfc-mann_b_854901.html

[Scuba]

1. I wouldn't care if the prison was an island paradise. The man....

...should be free. Manning is a hero and a patriot. He shoud be decorated, not indicted, and certainly not convicted by the Commander in Chief without even a Court Martial.

[Zorra]

2. He's usually correct about these things. nt

[qazplm]

3. why would the Army answer questions

about what the Marines did?

And no he shouldn't be free. He's charged with crimes, the process should play itself out. He certainly shouldn't be punished excessively in confinement as I believe he was at Quantico but believe he probably won't be at Leavenworth. Stereotypes aside, the Army is fairly benign with their pre-trial confinees for the most part, certainly better than civilian jails, and I think better than the Marines.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

7. Maybe because a UN committee on torture is making an inquiry?

I'm sure it's all good with the Army. After that forthright investigation into Abu Ghraib and their candid behavior concerning Pat Tillman, I think we should all relax and let the Pentagon do their thing.

[msanthrope]

10. Then they should ask the Marines.

Quantico is a Marine brig. Leavenworth is not.

The UN may visit Bradley Manning in Leavenworth.

The UN may speak with Bradley Manning's attorney.

The UN may read Bradley Manning's sworn statements regarding his treatment, freely available on the website of his attorney (138 complaint and rebuttal.)

The UN has varying options, but I am unaware that they've done anything, other than release press statements.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

14. I imagine they have and gotten the same story.

n/t

[msanthrope]

15. When did the UN interview Manning's attorney?

Nothing prevents them from doing so, or from reading the signed, sworn statements from Bradley Manning regarding his treatment.

They can also visit him.

Have they done any of these things???

Has Kucinich visited him?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

21. Based on his incarceration history,

I hope they do interview him. Perhaps he could be held by a country which does not engage in torture. Better yet, we should do a little housecleaning of senior officers and go back to a no-torture policy. The one we had for over 200 years.

[msanthrope]

25. I am sure that either the UN or DK will issue a press release

informing us all of the interview.

[qazplm]

11. you do realize

they are completely different entities right? The army cannot intelligently answer questions about Marine treatment of Manning. The DOD can. The Marines can. The Army cannot.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

13. You do realize

don't you, that no branch of the US military is worthy of trust, that each is a self-protecting bureaucracy and that both the branches have engaged in war crimes and torture in recent years (and lied about it)?

If you have the body, you need to be aware of a history of torture, for adequate medical treatment.

[white_wolf]

19. He is being held without trial.

That is in direct violation of his rights. Aside from that, there is the matter that he did the right thing by exposing some very bad crimes, and the people who did commit those crimes are free. They and Manning should change places.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

22. +1,000

[msanthrope]

24. You do realize that the defense requested the delay, right? They asked for a 706.

Which would delay the Article 32.

Waiting 9 months when you are facing a capital charge isn't unusual.

[hack89]

35. People are locked up in pre-trial confinement everyday

it is not a direct violation of his rights - it happens all the time.

[white_wolf]

40. He has not been charged yet.

[msanthrope]

41. Amazingly wrong---charged in July, and with additional capital charges, in March.

Available at his own website:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/charge-sheet-html


Second charge sheet--

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/bradley-manning-more-charge/

[upi402]

4. Obama, Harvard Lawyer, declared him GUILTY - before any trial

let alone a conviction.

And asshats HERE defend this shit?

[OnyxCollie]

5. Principles? We don't need no stinkin' principles.

XOXO,

The Party Uber Alles crowd.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

6. That is Change I wouldn't have believed in. n/t

n/t

[msanthrope]

8. Well, no, he didn't.

He said that Manning "broke the law."

"“I have to abide by certain classified information,” Obama said on a video that quickly began to circulate among media outlets Friday. “If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law. … We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. … He broke the law.”"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53601.html




That's not assessing guilt, but is a repetition of what the government is already charging--that Bradley Manning has indeed, broken the law. The facts alleged in the second charge sheet alone, if true, indicate that Manning did indeed break the law by giving the global server addresses of the US Command in Iraq to someone. On that charge alone, he can be put to death.

And he has--broken the law, that is. What remains to be seen is the penalty he will pay for it.

In fact, I will tell you that I fully expect the defense to concede that Manning has in fact 'broken the law,' but that his mental capacity was such that he never should have been put into a position to do so....

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Can you be considered to have "broken the law" without having been found guilty of same? n/t

[msanthrope]

12. Absolutely. This is why people hire lawyers.

One can break the law, (do the act/AR) but not meet the requirements for culpability.(mens rea/MR) That's day one, Crim Pro. Mitigation, affirmative defenses.

Does anyone here think Mr. Obama really didn't know precisely what he was saying???

He said exactly what the government has already charged--that Manning broke the law. But he didn't say anything about guilt.

Which is why Manning's attorney, David Coombs, has been pretty quiet on this issue.

What do you think is going to happen here when Coombs argues that Manning did indeed break the law, but should never have been put in the position he was due to his mental state?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

16. Pure sophistry.

He's a Con lawyer (pun intended) and arguably the chief law enforcement official in the US. He should honor the presumption of innocence. The presumption is not that he might be acquitted on a technicality, the presumption is that he is innocent of the alleged crime.

[msanthrope]

26. No. It's called the law. And as Obama made no comment on culpability,

the presumption of innocence is not violated.

Of course, he could say the same of Jared Loughner--he broke the law. It just remains to be seen what his culpability level is.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

27. Can't agree with your legal analysis 100%, there.

As in he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. That means the trier of fact presumes before evidence is entered that he did not break the law or do anything culpable with respect to the allegations. Most intelligent presidents have honored the tradition of not commenting on ongoing criminal proceedings, since it could be prejudicial. Indeed, at the very least it is irresponsible, since his publicized statements could cause a mistrial, should the matter come before a civilian court, and could be practically prejudicial even in a Court Martial, as in "My commander in chief already said this guy broke the law, so it might be career limiting if this guy walks."

If you can give me some federal caselaw, statute or federal rule of evidence that points to a different approach on the presumption of innocence, I would love to see it.

[msanthrope]

34. President Obama is not the trier of fact.

The trier of fact is the jury.

The trier of law? The judge.

Now, Coombs may try to voir dire on the issue of influence, but I think he's smart enough to leave well enough alone.

President Obama's statements can't cause a mistrial--there's no trial going on.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. Is that a straw man argument,

or did you misread my response? I re-read my last post and it's clear I wasn't asserting that Obama plays any direct role in any proceeding against the accused. Rather my point is Obama would be well served not to play self-serving, establishmentarian politics by saying the guy "broke the law." That is a conclusion of law which may never occur.

I'm no student of the Code of Military Justice, but I believe in Courts Martial, the judicial panel is always both trier of fact and law.

However, arguendo, assuming Manning is tried in a federal district court and requests a jury trial, Obama's irresponsible statement would be fair game for purposes of change of venue, voir dire and a post-conviction theory of jury contamination for appeal.

[sabrina 1]

17. "Charged" not convicted. And as a Constitutional lawyer

this president should have made that clarification. He should have said 'he has been charged with violating the law'.

You just stated that a person can be convicted of a crime before a trial. That is simply not true. Or should not be.

[msanthrope]

23. Obama didn't say he had been convicted.

He hasn't been convicted. But he will be.

He can always try the affirmative defense of 'whistleblower,' and if he meets the statutory requirements for it, the judge will allow the defense to argue that.

[sabrina 1]

28. He said he broke the law. That has not been established yet.

And as CIC of the armed forces, commenting on a military trial, he should have known better.

[msanthrope]

31. Oh, it's been established that he broke the law.

A quick read of the second charge sheet establishes that.

Further, his own supporters offer the affirmative defense of 'whistleblower'. That's confirmation of action, right?

Finally, tell me how Jared Loughner's rights are being violated? 'Cause there ain't no doubt that man broke the law, right? All that's left is culpability.

[sabrina 1]

32. You're still confusing conviction with charged.

The same goes for anyone accused of a crime. The public can form opinions of course, but the CIC or anyone directly involved in the legal process should not be offering their opinion on a matter over which they could exert undue influence.

There is simply no comparison between what Loughner did and what Manning did btw, even in the court of public opinion. One is accused of taking lives. The other is accused of trying to protect people from torture and death. Not a very good analogy.

More appropriate would be what Daniel Ellsberg did, and you should read the judge's opinion as to why he was found not guilty. Of course there people back then saying he was guilty also, that he broke the law and should be executed. The court decided that the public's need to know in that case, superceded everything else. And today and in the history books, he is regarded as a hero.

A just court, which Manning will not get, could make the same finding in this case. The Government was engaged in war crimes, among other things, and therefore the public's right to know could be ruled to supercede any laws forbidding the exposure of those crimes.

[OnyxCollie]

33. "Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we vigorously investigate it.

And where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute.

But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

Frmr Atty General Michael Mukasey, August 12, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/12/mukasey.justice/

[sabrina 1]

36. "But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

That only seems to work when Republicans commit crimes. That was quite a convoluted defense of the total politicization and as a result, complete ineffectiveness of the DOJ by the Bush administration. Mukasey saw nothing even worth investigating.

Interesting since James Comey and even in the end, Ashcroft, did see criminal intent in some of the actions wrt to using the DOJ for political purposes. Makasey also assured Bush wrongfully appointed DOJ members that their jobs were not threatened.

I wonder how he feels about Manning?

[msanthrope]

39. What does Mukasey have to do with Army CID?

IS he working for them, now?

Or are you suggesting that a failure to prosecute in one law enforcement agency means no crime anywhere else gets prosecuted???

Because that's a very novel application of Equal Protection. I totally think Manning's attorney's should go with it.

To use your analogy--Lyndie England should not have been prosecuted at all, because the higher-ups weren't.

[msanthrope]

37. Daniel Ellsberg was NOT found not guilty.

No--the charges against him were thrown because of government wiretapping, and not because the judge found him not guilty. In fact, the judge specifically addressed the reasons WHY he was NOT acquitting Ellsberg--


"He said that he believed enough of the case was left to litigate before the jury, if the defendants so desired. They did not, and then he read his ruling.

"A judgment of acquittal goes to all the facts," he said, but he added that if he ruled on that defense motion, "it would not dispose of all the issues." That, he said, "can only be done by going to the jury."


http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0511.html#article


The judge refused to acquit Ellsberg, noting there was still enough to go to the verdict.


Now, you still refuse to answer just how revealing the global server addresses of the US Command in Iraq exposed 'war crimes.' Explain to me what 'crimes' were exposed by doing that single action?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

46. Please pass the fatty,

which you are obviously smoking.

A quick read of the second charge sheet establishes that.

Charge sheets do nothing of the kind, either practically or legally. Remember Wen Ho Lee, held for a year and never even tried? How about the innocent security guard accused of planting a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics?.

Overly zealous, politically motivated prosecutors are an historical reality, especially in this formerly constitutional republic of ours where police-state tactics present a much greater threat to us than any group of Islamist extremists.

Hell, Obama has pushed the envelope beyond the Bush regime in some civil liberties issues. Constitutional lawyer, my ass!

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Yes, it's called the Insanity Defence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense

[EFerrari]

30. Usually you have to pay Miss Cleo to get a reading like that.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

38. he gave his bloody OPINION that he thought Manning had broken the law

he didn't declare him guilty as only a court can do that. And its not like it was any big surprise he is of that view since the government is pressing the charges in the first place(Wouldn't it be more worrying if Obama didn't think Manning had broken the law but still pressed charges?)

[Admiral Loinpresser]

47. And it was BLOODY irresponsible,

but politically effective, which is typical for a Chicago politician.

If you were charged with a crime, would it make any difference to you whether the POTUS commented negatively on your presumed innocence?

Obama needs to STFU and ask Al Gore how to salvage this abomination of a presidency.

[G_j]

20. K&R

[Ignis]

29. K&R

[crickets]

42. K&R!

[Kurovski]

43. K&R. (nt)

[robinlynne]

44. disgusting.