Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama hurt fair trial chances: Manning backers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 05:50 PM
Original message
Obama hurt fair trial chances: Manning backers
WASHINGTON — Supporters of alleged Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of interfering the future trial, after the president said the army private broke the law.

The White House however disputed the stance of the Bradley Manning Support Network, which arose after an encounter between Obama and a group member following a political fundraiser in San Francisco last week.

Obama told activist Logan Price in an exchange caught on camera that Manning, 23, had acted irresponsibly and risked the lives of US service members by allegedly sending secret military and diplomatic documents to the website.

"He broke the law," Obama said.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iASLv67aFb5qNHFoQusuvdtoHekA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Even if Obama didn't know anything about Manning
didn't even know he was imprisoned. I'm not so sure if he would have gotten a fair trail to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I don't think so either...
People in general are horribly confused over civilian and military law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Yup........
Edited on Tue Apr-26-11 07:56 PM by Historic NY
/>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Could they be trying to sabotage the trial??
By torturing him and the president saying he is guilty.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. The commander in chief prejudged the case....a former constitutional law professor no less
Edited on Tue Apr-26-11 05:55 PM by Cali_Democrat
This has special significance because it will be a military trial and Obama is the commander in chief of the military.

The case should be thrown out and Manning should be freed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. LOL! The Free Mumia of the 21st century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. You've posted this over and over.

I guess joking about the miscarriage of justice passes for wit in some circles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. There is no enforcement of law.
Edited on Tue Apr-26-11 05:59 PM by RandomThoughts
A person can not be accused of breaking laws when none exist in society.

It simply is not possible to break a law in worse then anarchy situation.

You can go against a control edict without any just backing behind it, but you can not be said to have, or be accused of, or convicted of breaking a law.

They still aren't listening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Nonsense. Exactly how did he "hurt fair trial chances"
by vocalizing what everyone already knew his position was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Animals vocalize, people verbalize.
And it's called undue command influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recovered Repug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. How exactly?
837. ART. 37. UNLAWFULLY INFLUENCING ACTION OF COURT
No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercises of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceedings.

Even if the President is considered an "other commanding officer" - there is currently no trial taking place, so this section doesn't seem to apply.

No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts.


This section doesn't apply because the President is not "subject to this chapter" see link.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

So, how was there "undue command influence"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Are you trying to say with a straight face that having the CIC
deliver a verdict before the proceedings have even started is not undue influence?

Good grief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recovered Repug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I am saying with a straight face
that just because YOU call it undue influence, doesn't make it so. You may want it to be, but I don't see how it qualifies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Maybe this OP can help:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmmettKelly Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. Didn't work for Manson
Edited on Tue Apr-26-11 06:14 PM by EmmettKelly
And Nixon was a Lawyer too. Of course we all know Nixon was a blithering idiot.


August 4, 1970
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

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