White House backs off Obama's "he broke the law"

[Enrique]

good for them. :thumbsup:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/26/obama-hurt-fair-trial-chances-manning-backers/

(...)

Obama's National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor however disputed the interpretation of the encounter provided by Manning's supporters.

"The president was emphasizing that, in general, the unauthorized release of classified information is not a lawful act. He was not expressing a view as to the guilt or innocence of Private First Class Manning specifically."

(...)

[Phx_Dem]

1. He doesn't want to "convict him" before he had his day in court, but the

fact is he DID break the law. Releasing classified information is against the law.

[johnnypneumatic]

2. was it “not intended to be a factual statement.”?

"D'oh!"

[Bodhi BloodWave]

14. his statement was perfectly factual

In the Governments(and as such Obamas) opinion Manning broke the law, that is after all why there are charges against him, Obama didn't convict Manning since he isn't a judge nor is he a jury, he gave his opinion of what manning did. The fact that people are panicking and running around claiming that Obama DID convict Manning is why the WH was forced to clarify his statement.

[mkultra]

3. ON NOES! we said someone is guilty when they actually are guilty

our society will collapse!

[Enrique]

4. this shows that you don't understand the issue you're mocking

you write: "we said someone is guilty when they actually are guilty"

this has nothing to do with what we say. Our saying Manning is guilty is not improper. But the president's saying it is improper. And the White House realized that, and so made the clarification, correctly.

[Cherchez la Femme]

9. Never stopped him before...

and, y'know, without seeing near all the evidence which would be entered in Manning's case in a court of law
--because in this instance, but this instance only, the damned M$M is completely correct, fair 'n balanced--
he just somehow knows the "truth"!

Heck, I think he should go for James Randi's 1M Psi award, based upon his awesome precognition!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

12. the White House admits Greenwald and the others were right

and makes jerks out of anyone who defended the Obama statement.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

15. Nope, it didn't, all they did is clarify to those running around

claiming Obama DID convict manning that Obama /didn't/ convict him, he gave his(and the governments) opinion that manning broke the law which is why there are charges against the man.

If the whole statement of Obama is read then its clear he restated the governments view on manning

[Enrique]

17. you are standing by Obama's original statement

but the White House is not. I agree with them on that, he shouldn't have said it.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

18. point me to where the WH stated that they had *convicted* manning please. n/t

[Enrique]

19. he didn't convict Manning

that wasn't the issue and that's not what the White House backed away from.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

20. that is what most seem to be claiming he said and claim they are backed away off tho

and I think that is what the white house is specifying that he did not as from the OP "He was not expressing a view as to the guilt or innocence of Private First Class Manning specifically."

There are not many reasons why they would need to point out that Obama hadn't stated manning was guilty or innocent, since all obama did was restate the governments view that they believed manning had broken the law.

[AtomicKitten]

16. LOL!! This doesn't make B. Jesus Manning any less guilty. For crissakes, he admitted to his crimes.

As I said in another thread:

This showcases people predisposed to glomming onto anything they perceive as being in opposition to this president. B. Jesus Manning was indiscriminate in downloading reams of data and Assange dumped it on the interweb without an iota of concern for the consequences. The first download failed to redact the names of "friendlies" in Iraq, the consequence of cooperating with the U.S. often deadly.

[mkultra]

22. This is a fabricated issue by the right wing

and you are carrying their water. In reality, its meaningless.

[former9thward]

5. Society will not collapse but it was improper.

Obama is the overall commander of the judges in this case. He does not command civilian judges but he does the judges in the military.

[sudopod]

35. I mean, it was in the newspaper, it must be true, right? nt

[MasonJar]

6. It is not only against the law but also against the Constitution to convict

someone without a trial. (The old innocent until proven guilty mantra.) If the government does not want to be exposed, it should stick to honest business that can be shown to the public which elected it.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Yep. It was completely improper. I'm glad the White House is backing away from the statement

Of course I was attacked for saying Manning is innocent until proven guilty. I'm glad the White House see's it my way.

See what happens when we keep the pressure on the White House?

[vroomvroom]

8. Bush/Chenney CLEARLY Broke the Law -- Obama didn't dare Anger Republicans

But Manning..with no clear evidence of such Obama instinctively vilifies him. Stay classy White House.

At least Obama realizes it is campaign season and so pulling back on the "broke the law" comment is expected.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Too late. The well has already been poisoned

What military judge is not going to be influenced by what their CinC thinks?

Even if they don't like Obama, any concessions to Manning might be considered deleterious to their careers.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. what judge didn't already know what Obama/the white house's view are?

the government are the ones accusing Manning for crying out loud,

[Canuckistanian]

24. It's normal for a President to STFU about sensitive legal cases

In order to avoid situations just like this.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

25. i see nothing wrong in a president restating the governments position.

And restating the governments position is not declaring somebody innocent or guilty, its restating what they think(which is a sad thing to near to clarify to people)

[Enrique]

27. you may not see anything wrong with it, but they did

"The president was emphasizing that, in general, the unauthorized release of classified information is not a lawful act. He was not expressing a view as to the guilt or innocence of Private First Class Manning specifically."

[Bodhi BloodWave]

28. exactly what i'm saying, he did not express a view as to the guilt or innocence

he restated the governments position, If people hadn't been running around saying that the president have convicted Manning as guilty et al then there would have been no reason for the WH to point out the rather obvious distinction between stating the governments view that they think manning broke the law, and declaring somebody guilty

[Canuckistanian]

31. NO. You can't have public officials pronounce judgement on cases before sentencing

This is called judicial prejudice and if this were a civil case, the judge would be scrambling to find a new venue or warning a jury to disregard such statements.

There's a REASON the statue of justice is blindfolded. It's so those who judge do so on THE FACTS presented in COURT, not emotional or suggestible reasons by those OUTSIDE the proceedings.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

32. and he DIDN'T pronounce judgement

he restated the governments position in regards to manning, that he broke the law. which is why there are charges against him

Obama didn't declare, convict, pronounce Manning guilty, he simply gave a statement of the governments stance(which is quite clear if the full statement of Obama is read)

[Canuckistanian]

33. He said (and I quote) "He broke the law"

Sorry, you don't get to make that statement unless you're a judge.

[msanthrope]

34. Wrong--anybody gets to make that statement.

The government makes that statement in order to charge.

The trier of fact decides if that statement is true, and if culpability is assigned.

President Obama said nothing about his guilt.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

23. he doesn't make many gaffes

this was one of the very few.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. So a low gaffe index now excuses the occasional misspeak. I see. n/t

[msanthrope]

30. It wasn't a misspeak. It's the government's position.

He did, in fact, break the law.

[msanthrope]

29. this isn't a 'back off.' It was a careful statement, and a even more parsed explanation.

President Obama never spoke to the culpability of Manning. Of course he didn't.

But he did hold fast to the government's assertion that he did, indeed, break the law--

But this thread really misses the forest for the trees, doesn't it?

given Manning being moved where he will probably spend his sentence, and given the grand jury subpoenas this past week, this is de minimus...