Again, this is probably because I am not a lawyer, but I just don’t see the big deal in this:
First, Obama said this when justifying Manning’s treatment (video and transcript are here):
We’re a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.
The impropriety of Obama’s public pre-trial declaration of Manning’s guilt (“He broke the law”) is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt? Numerous commentators have noted how egregiously wrong was Obama’s condemnation. Michael Whitney wrote: “the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime.” BoingBoing’s Rob Beschizza interpreted Obama’s declaration of guilt this way: “Just so you know, jurors subordinate judging officers!” And Politico quoted legal experts explaining why Obama’s remarks are so obviously inappropriate.
I’ll just accept that this was inappropriate, given all the legal experts who have a problem with it, but as quick to freak out about things as I am, I read this and thought it was no big deal. The President thinks he broke the law, so does Holder, so do lots of people in the military, and that is why he is going to be tried! If Obama didn’t think he had broken the law, but was trying him anyway, then I’d have a problem.
Again, I’m not arguing what he said was right or that everyone upset about his remarks are wrong, I’m just telling you what I thought when I heard it- from the point of view of the non-lawyer proles, this was not a big deal.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
greenwald is a libertarian.
nuff said.
Mithras
If he didn’t think Manning had done it, or wasn’t sure, then he should release him immediately.
Prosecuting someone usually implies you think they’re guilty.
Joe Beese
It matters because Manning will be tried by men who, through the chain of command, are subservient to Obama.
mk387
This was from Obama talking with a crowd at a fundraiser and giving his opinion, just as Cole says.
But I soon as I saw it, I immediate thought “Greewald bait”.
And sure enough, like a Limbaugh-styled attack dog, he pounces:
BTW, did you ever try to counter Greenwald in comments on Salon?
He’ll take a razor and try to slice you apart.
In Greenwalds’s world, Greenwald is God and Greedwald is NEVER WRONG.
mk387
@Joe Beese:
Oh, puhleeze. Presidents are allowed to express their opinion, too. And Manning’s lawyer is free to now claim that he can’t get a fair trial.
Good luck with that! The “Greewald morality” has its limits in the real world …
Joe Beese
Also, “nation of laws” is rich coming from someone who, far from prosecuting Bush-era torturers, as he is required to do by US law, which is our what our ratification of the Geneva Convention makes it, has actively worked to block their prosecution by Spain.
The “nation of laws” also seems to stop well short of Wall Street.
NobodySpecial
This is America, land of “guilty until proven innocent”.
Joe Beese
@mk387:
Well, you’re at a disadvantage there.
He has facts and links and so on, while all you have is ad hominem stuff about where he gets his money from and where he lives.
Guster
@Joe Beese: Yeah, that part is pretty laughable. I don’t have a big problem with him saying ‘he broke the law’ without the ‘allegedly,’ which is just lawyer-talk.
But I find this frankly embarrassing: “We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate.”
Lavocat
Thank Jeebus yer not an attorney. Then again, I know attorneys who don’t think this is a big deal. Of course, they all work for the state, but, hey, it’s all good!
MikeJ
What’s even dumber is when people complain that commenters on a blog shouldn’t mention that a person who has already confessed actually committed the crime he’s charged with.
NealB
What about the torture?
Chris
Obama wasn’t saying that he’s going to be tried because he broke the law — you’re right that that would be less offensive. He said the treatment of him was justified because he broke the law — in other words, that he’s being treated so badly because he broke the law. We’re not supposed to punish people before they’ve been found guilty of anything.
mk387
@Joe Beese: Not really.It’s actually an amuzing example of an oversized ego.
MikeJ
Where was the outrage when OJ Simpson was on trial?
mk387
@Chris: But! But! … He couldn’t wear pajamas to bed for MONTHS!
Joe Beese
@MikeJ:
Are you referring to the chat logs provided by Adrian Lamo?
Damning evidence indeed. Why to fabricate those, someone would need an extensive working knowledge of Notepad.
Guster
@Chris: Good point. And big point.
My balloon-senses tell me that if Cole reads this far, he’ll update his post …
mk387
@Lavocat: A good attorney will try to claim that Manning can’t a fair trial. Of course, that argument won’t win because it wasn’t clear what it is exactly that Obama was saying since it was an off-the-cuff remark from a camera phone video recording.
STUCKZILLA!
Duh! OBAMA WOOD NEVER TORTURE no INNOCENT criminal. aNY IDiot ought to kNoW thit. Nex your GONNA TELL ME Obama is WORSE thin Bush. BWWA HAAhahahah. That it;d be a goodin”
HANDS UP !! GrEENWAldo!
AND STEP AWAY FROM THE UNICORN
BWWWAA HAAHAHAHA!
jeff
I’m glad there are people like Greenwald, but it is outrageous that people are pledging not to vote for Obama over this. Presumably they just won’t vote–I don’t think they’ll run over to campaign for Haley Barbour or anything. But I just don’t get this inability to participate in an imperfect world. You can both vote for Obama and voice your disagreement…even very strenuously do so. Right?
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
So forgetting to put “allegedly” in front of “broke the law” at an event is something worth a Greenwald 1,500 word bloviation bubble about Alice in Wonderland and the Pentagon Papers?
Sheesh, it’s either a public speaking gaffe, or the president has seen a lot of the evidence against manning, and has really decided that he probably is the guy who leaked the data… SO? Come cry to me when Obama signs an anti-pardon, where he gets to convict Manning with a signature.
cleek
John Cole please report to FDL for immediate reinvigoration of your Perpetually Outraged Lefty glands.
timb
@Joe Beese: That took until comment three?
It’s why people say “I will not comment on pending legislation.” It’s disgusting and I say that as an Obama fanboy. If the mayor of a city said it, it would grounds for a mistrial
Joe Beese
Amusingly, you will find this same level of focus on the shortcomings of Glenn Greenwald’s character – as opposed to his arguments – at the Great Orange Satan.
The closer we get to November 2012, the more intolerable his blogospheric presence becomes to a certain kind of Obama supporter.
cat48
This is what was said; transcribed by Andy Greenberg at Fortune from the video:
People can have philosophical views about…
[Questioner: unintelligible]
No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. 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.
[Questioner: ‘You can make it harder to break the law.’]
Well, what he did was he dumped…
[Questioner: something about President Nixon’s prosecution of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg]
It wasn’t the same thing. What Ellsberg released wasn’t classified in the same way. So. Anyway. Alright.
Adam Hominem
I think it was an editor at Salon who said “Donald Rumsfeld is above the law, and Yaser Hamdi is below it.”
This bullshit about us being a nation of laws is just that: bullshit.
Guster
@jeff: I agree with you. I think those people are idiots. But do kinda sympathize with them. There really is no significant way for them to voice their disagreement. They feel powerless vis-a-vis the crappy shit Obama pulls, because they _are_ powerless. So they say something stupid about not voting for him–and maybe even follow through.
I’m pretty sure there’s one thing that’ll bring ’em back to the fold, though: a Republican candidate.
Cermet
@Joe Beese: Excellent point
timb
@mk387: Are you ignoring the untruth in the statement? You know, the fact that nothing establishes Manning DID break the law. You know, nothing like a trial. We still have those, right, or is it okay if the President just says you are guilty.
sukabi
I’m also not a lawyer, but the problems I see in Obama’s statement is that
1) he’s assuming guilt where none has been proven
and
2) he’s dismissing Manning’s treatment because he’s already assumed his guilt
both of those positions are just flat out wrong… unless our entire Constitution has been voided.
TooManyJens
@Chris:
I didn’t get that from the video or the transcript. Obama seemed to me to be pushing back against the “free Bradley Manning” signs, chants, and singing that had gone on earlier at the fundraiser (I’m basing this both on what he said and on the Twitter stream of the person who was asking the question in the video).
I haven’t seen any indication that he was speaking specifically about Manning’s treatment.
Bob
Not the first time Obama has provoked finger wagging on legal matters:
“In response to a question at his prime-time news conference about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., the black Harvard professor, in his own home over the weekend, Mr. Obama declared that the Cambridge, Mass., police had ‘acted stupidly.'”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/23race.html
timb
@Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac: Maybe he just did?
rcman
It’s not his place to be expounding publicly on whether Manning is guilty or not. He’s not an ordinary citizen and his pronouncements have the weight commensurate with being the leader of the entire country. I’m not saying he’s Stalin but c’mon do we really want the president influencing the trial of a PFC ? Whatever happened to trial THEN verdict. Is it really too much to ask of an attorney and leader of the free world ?
Midnight Marauder
Joe Beese’s performance in this thread has yet to fail expectations.
A tour de force of inanity, Joe. Well done.
Omnes Omnibus
Obama should not have made the comment. He was wrong to have done so for the reasons that Greenwald mentions; in the end, however, this comment will not have an effect on Manning’s trial. File it under harmless error.
mk387
@timb: That makes sense if it was a press conference, which this was not. It was his opinion off-the-cuff. As Cole said, t’aint a big deal.
shortstop
@Joe Beese: And most other types of Obama supporter are totally indifferent to Greenwald, having given up reading him most of the time — and you pretty much all the time, this thread notwithstanding. But I do understand that both of you are wired to assume that everyone’s else wiring is as obsessive as yours.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
@Chris: Where does Glenn say this? The full transcript isn’t anywhere at Greenwald, or FDL, or anywhere else, so i’m not sure if Obama does say that Manning’s treatment is justifiable because he’s guilty. If he does say this, then Cole is wrong, but I dont’ see it.
Zifnab
Well, that’s kind of an open question at this point. He’s been in custody for the better part of a year. Have they even officially pressed charges against him? Has he been arraigned? Does he have a lawyer?
If this was just a case of a leaker getting caught, tried, and tossed in the klink, I agree that it wouldn’t be a big deal. But Manning isn’t getting tried. He’s just getting thrown in jail and psychologically abused. That’s not part of any legal system I covered in civics class.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I’m a non-lawyer prole and I have a problem with Obama’s statement (and I’m not looking for a bus to be thrown under, I’m just saying that BHO screwed this one up).
This isn’t very complicated: nobody in a position of authority (much less the POTUS) should be making public announcements pre-judging the guilt of a defendant prior to their trial. Statements like this are why people get their trials moved from one juristiction to another in cases where prejudicial media coverage has tainted the pool of potential jurors beyond the point where the defendant can expect to receive a fair trial. Except that in this case, where do you move the trial to now? I realise this isn’t a jury trial, but the principle is the same. The purpose of a trial is to determine if the defendant is guilty or not, not to put a rubber stamp on “what everybody already knows” (so-called).
eemom
Iz in ur boat, not gettin owt.
Zifnab
@Midnight Marauder: He’s still no Darrel.
/wayback machine
OzoneR
The prosecutor says the defendant is guilty, shocking, I know.
existential fish
@NobodySpecial:
Except that prosecutors (and by extension the executive) have to think exactly that.
Every single prosecutor in the country thinks every defendant in the country is guilty before being proven innocent.
Judges don’t think that way. If there was any risk this might unduly influence judges I’d be concerned, but no one has brought that evidence before me. And hasn’t Manning confessed? That makes the issue of whether he broke the laws academic.
TooManyJens
@Bob: Saying the police “acted stupidly” is a legal matter? Well, I suppose it might be in a country where “contempt of cop” is an offense that can get you arrested.
OzoneR
@Joe Beese:
This might be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
timb
@mk387: We’ll agree to disagree. In a system of laws, there’s a good chance Manning would not be able to be tried, given his pre-trial treatment and the prejudicial statements of the President. Fortunately, while the UCMJ acts like a real Court system, they aren’t bound by petty irregularities like this (at least not since 2001).
Guess my sense of civil liberties trumps my Obama love. Argue a gaffe if you like, but stop acting like, in a real legal system, it would mean nothing (and I’m not speaking like a lawyer, since I don’t practice criminal law; I’m speaking as an educated layperson)
timb
@OzoneR: Why
Joe Beese
And remember how you guys used to razz Bush for being pathologically incapable of admitting a mistake?
The White House says the Peace Laureate was simply “making a general statement that did not go specifically to the charges against Manning”.
Lest his words “He broke the law” have caused any confusion on that score.
Omnes Omnibus
@Zifnab:
The answer to each of those questions in yes. FFS, if you can’t bother to even have a basic familiarity with the fact in the case, why are you commenting about it?
Bob Loblaw
Slow Monday, huh?
OzoneR
@timb:
because that’s true of any political leader who says he believes a person is guilty. I mean should the governor of a state not say he believes a murderer is guilty (hint, they do all the time) because the ADA trying him is subservient to the governor…or the DA, County Executive?
Josie
From the transcript, it seems that he is defining what exactly is against the law about what Manning did. He is saying that, even if a military person disagrees with a policy, he is breaking the law if he releases classified information. The president is saying that even he is barred by law from doing such things, not commenting on Manning’s treatment or punishment.
timb
@OzoneR: Are you guys unaware that there are limits to what prosecutors can say to the public, so they do not taint the jury pool? Is this something none of you have heard of. the most powerful man in the world has just made a statement in public of the guilt or innocence of a person subject to his jurisdiction. How that does “taint” the pool of officers is a mystery.
existential fish
Manning has confessed, which makes Greenwald’s assertion much salient.
No one has any doubts that Manning was the source. The only questions are his mentality, whether anyone else was a party, and what are the highest level of charges to bring against him. Obama’s statement didn’t implicate any of those, positively or negatively.
Manning did things that broke the law (even before we get into whether that was justified or not). That’s just not in doubt at any level whatsoever.
aimai
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Good statement, TLTIA. I’m disapointed that Obama’s famous cool and his law professor background didn’t get him to just “no comment” it as far as Manning’s guilt or innocence. And I think it is kind of a big deal because, well, of the presumption of innocence. But I prefer to think that President Obama misspoke, or we aren’t reading the transcript right (since I haven’t listened to the audio) because it really is a no brainer and he’s a brainy guy. I do think that its clear that the civil liberties issues are simply not important to Obama-the-President and he is able to compartmentalize the part of himself that Obama the candidate would have sincerely cared about.
aimai
OzoneR
@timb:
yes, saying you think a person broke the law is not one of them. Of course you think he broke the law, if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be prosecuting him.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
John, could you please only start a Greenwald thread when you are in strong agreement or disagreement with him, because it seems a shame to start another rabid flamefest of ad hominems and character assassinations over a minor quibble.
El Tiburon
@mk387:
So please, pretty please, point to one of these Epic Fails by Greenwald. Sounds to me you tried to point out the fallacy of one of your so-called “Greenwald morality” and you bit off a bit more than you could chew and the result was a severely injured ego.
It really is Lawyer 101 to not presume the guilt of a defendant, especially by the President of the United States when talking about a member of the military. It was stupid.
But never mind Big Guy: you have our attention and you are in John Cole’s world, so do it. Tear Greenwald down. Trust me, you have lots of commenters over here who would love to see it. Many have tried and they have all failed miserably.
So you are up mk387, you gonna go for it? Prove him wrong. Whip it out, mix it up, do what you got to do. No excuses.
We are waiting.
Superluminar
What Omnes Omnibus said (basically Cole’s point): given Obama’s office, the remark should not have been made, but it’s not really a big deal. Also to peeps none-to-familiar with the law, the presumption of innocence is a legal doctrine, it doesn’t mean that induvidual’s outside of the legal system are not allowed to make their own assesments of someone’s guilt or innocence.
El Tiburon
@Shoemaker-Levy 9:
What is the minor quibble? That the President of the United States so clearly stated that one of his soldiers broke the law? Before a trial?
That minor quibble?
Dennis SGMM
Obama’s pre-trial declaration of Manning’s guilt does not mean that I won’t vote for him. It just moves the needle a bit more toward “At least he’s not a Republican.”
J.W. Hamner
Unless we suspect that Obama personally witnessed said law breaking… or think he is omniscient… it’s safe to assume that “believe” was implied there.
Billy Bob Tweed
Agree completely. It’s no big deal. If Dear Leader says it, then it must be true. And of course, Obama didn’t have to run to the right of the Nixon administration to prove how tough he is; standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the past admin and proving that BUSH WAS RIGHT would’ve been good enough. That hopey-changey stuff was all a bunch of baloney to begin with. But if Obama really wants to score points, then he should come right out of the closet and admit that BUSH WAS RIGHT, and his supporters need to back him up, ‘cos it’s obviously true. Bush WAS right. So was Cheney. So was Wolfowitz, so was Rumsfeld, so was John Bolton, so was Bill Kristol – every one of them RIGHT-RIGHT-RIGHT — and now we have a president who has grown up and not only accepted their “reality,” but also added some lovely new wars and secret bombing campaigns to ensure we get EVEN MORE detainees in Guantanamo, that fabulous symbol of American military power that Obama foolishly once made election promises to abolish. Putz! A lib who got mugged by reality – VILLAGE-CERTIFIED NEOCON REALITY. Suck on that America-haters. Bush Was Right, and Gitmo is a Good Thing.
El Tiburon
@existential fish:
So much stupid in here. You have no idea if Manning broke any laws. That he confessed is besides the point. A confession is not worth the paper it is printed on. So there is lots of doubt. There is SO MUCH doubt that a defendant is presumed innocent until a trial has occurred.
Will
I’m not going to read the comments as I need to get this comment in before another 3000+ are posted over the next three seconds.
In short, this is not a big deal. UCI is a serious concern, and these statements will be worth some papers flying back and forth at some point in time, but it will hardly create any long term issues in Manning’s prosecution. (Or at least it shouldn’t; note that if a case is sufficiently political then pigs may fly and cats may bark.)
These comments raise an issue of UCI (unlawful command influence). Similar issues were raised when the President spoke following the Fort Hood shooter, and also under Bush following Bush’s comments after Abu Ghraib.
While UCI is a very real concern in military justice, and there have been lots of CAAF (see note) cases on the subject, my bet is that these statements, on their own, are hardly enough to support of finding of UCI.
Note – CAAF = court of appeals for the armed forces, formerly the court of military appeals – the last stop before scotus for mil jus; and for most folks, in the final court. scotus don’t hear many mil jus cases. I was at the last one. It was delightful. Roberts doesn’t know the difference between the army and the navy.
kindness
Look, the issue isn’t what President Obama said. The issue is we have treated Manning to gitmo security and depravation without him having been convicted first, and then Obama tries to cut himself some slack. That is the big issue.
Don’t overlook the circumstances when parsing the statement. I don’t want to think Obama is as big an asshat as the bush43 boys were, but in this case with this service member, Obama & his Administration are just that.
That’s why you hear the noise.
existential fish
At the point where the entire government (military and all) is on notice not to visit Wikileaks either on their computer OR a family computer, i think the jury contamination question is pretty moot.
timb
@OzoneR: No, they don’t or there may be a mis-trial from the taint of the jury pool
existential fish
@El Tiburon:
Manning confessed. You’re just being glib about confessions.
Martin
I may be misremembering something, but hasn’t Manning admitted to taking the information? If so, is it now wrong to prejudge someone who has confessed?
NobodySpecial
@existential fish: Obama isn’t a prosecutor. Full stop.
tkogrumpy
Has anyone else mentioned the thing most important to me? This guy is supposed to be a lawyer AND a constitutional scholar.What does this say about this guys smarts? He Volunteered that Manning was guilty without even being asked. Now they don’t allow high school drop-outs to practice law,but I have never seen any public figure let alone a constitutional scholar POTUS flat out declare an accused guilty before trial. This is not good.
General Stuck
Gawd hep me for this, getting out of the boat, but the state, in this case the military, follows the probable cause standard in the Constitution. Which means legally, justification in charging and holding him until trial. Which is a standard that the government made a case to a court that it is more likely than not that Mr. Manning broke the law.
If Obama has added the term, or used it alone of “guilty” or “he’s guilty” then that could be construed to pre empt the finding of a jury based a the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
He shouldn’t have said it for no other reason as bored pundits will now have something to wank. Pol blunder.
edit – though what will said is a unique problem with mil courts.
Joe Beese
@Will:
I can’t argue with that.
Obama need only declare that he doesn’t have enough evidence to prosecute Manning but that Manning is too dangerous to release and we can skip the charade of a trial.
Or if he feels the need to mount one as a sop to the “professional left” and it goes sour, he can simply assert “presidential post-acquittal detention power”.
timb
@NobodySpecial: Nah, he’s just their boss and the boss of the jurors.
Personally, I’ll go with UCMJ expert on the thread and just say the president should remember to say allegedly and the fact that he does not is a big deal. What the President SAYS is a big deal, just maybe not the biggest. Seems hysterical to me that Greenwald was a liberal champion before he determined consistency applied to Dems as well as Bybees
existential fish
@NobodySpecial:
Uh, right. So what?
Where is the harm here? Is his statement going to give Manning an unfair trial? No. Are there any other potential implications? No.
That’s it. That’s the analysis.
Midnight Marauder
@Dennis SGMM:
That has got to be a mighty large dial, I reckon.
El Tiburon
@mk387:
Troll alert. You really are a grade-A idiot.
But Greenwald did have that 3,500 word post on how Michael J. Fox was pretending to have Parkinson’s to get donations so he could have sex with little boys.
So, maybe you are on to something.
existential fish
@tkogrumpy:
Welcome to Balloon Juice Mr. Trump.
Omnes Omnibus
@tkogrumpy: Actually, it appears that he said that Manning broke the law. He did not say that he was guilty. There is a difference. Still, dumb comment by Obama; he should have known better.
arguingwithsignposts
@Billy Bob Tweed: Anyone who uses the phrase “Dear Leader,” or “Obummer” or “Obambi” or Barack HUSSEIN Obama when discussing the president’s actions is not interested in engaging in a serious discussion of the merits of the issue at hand.
Carry on.
El Tiburon
@existential fish:
Yes, if we were on a 3rd grade playground. Tag you’re it and I know you are but what am I?
Shoemaker-Levy 9
@El Tiburon:
Er, no, the minor quibble between John and Glenn. John agrees that Obama’s statement was “inappropriate” but “not a big deal.”
See? People are already getting into an uproar. I think Greenwald threads on Balloon Juice should be like war, only started when absolutely necessary.
eemom
@Superluminar:
“Not really a big deal”? Obama caught in a single-sentence fuck up? Ya gotta be shittin me.
arguingwithsignposts
Maybe someone could point the B-J commentariat to a flow chart/time line of what has and hasn’t happened in the Manning case (i.e., what are these confessions, exactly, what kinds of motions have been filed, etc.). Are those things top secret in military courts?
johnny walker
That’s funny, because I was just thinking about starting an engine repair blog. I don’t actually know anything about cars, and every post I have worked up so far is just me quoting someone who does and then pointing out that I have a gut feeling that… well, not so much that they’re wrong but that whatever problem they’re describing doesn’t ‘feel’ like a big deal.
Will
Hey look!
http://www.caaflog.com/2011/04/23/did-president-obamas-remark-about-pfc-manning-constitute-uci/
A few points based off of the links from that blog.
1)
[quote]Aftergood and Fidell agreed that Obama remarks — while unfortunate — probably will not affect whether Manning will receive a fair trial. “It’s not that hard to ensure that unlawful command influence hasn’t in fact prejudiced the right to a fair trial,” Fidell explained. “If the case goes to a court marshal, the military court will have to make sure that none of the members of the military jury have been influenced by the president’s stated belief that Manning broke the law.”[/quote]
2)
[quote]The comments raised the specter of unlawful command influence in the case by having the individual (the President) who would be required to approve a death sentence if Manning is convicted and capitally sentenced prejudge Manning’s guilt before the case is even referred to court-martial. While the UCI argument might not win in this case, it’s certain to be closely examined by Manning’s defense counsel as the case moves forward.[/quote]
3) The folks at Politico have NO IDEA how to spell “court-martial.” Do you think that tells you anything about their (or other reporters ability) to accurately report of mil jus issues?
ps – hmmmm…. let’s see if that attempt to quote worked….
OzoneR
@El Tiburon:
Terry Jones.
Greenwald is the type of person who would defend a person’s right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater and check off the 24 people who died in the stampede as collateral damage in the fight for free speech.
All why shedding tears over the 2 people killed by a predator drones.
Omnes Omnibus
@arguingwithsignposts: General timeline at the Wikipedia page as well as links to the charges filed.
Billy Bob Tweed
@arguingwithsignposts:
Indeed. And a president who runs as a Dem, breaks his election promises, and acts like a Neocon, needs to be called out for what he is: a FAKE and a LIAR. That, my friend, is Your Dear Leader.
Carry on…?
You keep sipping the Kool-Aid.
Superluminar
@eemom
I know! He has singlehandedly rewritten the entire constitution with that one statement! How will the courts survive this outrage? I predict 47-24, or something.
Tim in SF
After eight long years of W, you would think the punditocracy would be used to verbal gaffes.
Billy Bob Tweed
@Omnes Omnibus:
He confessed to Adrian Lamo. Good enuff for Obama; good enough for me.
Zifnab
@Omnes Omnibus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Legal_proceedings
Apparently not. He’s been in custody for 9 months and he’s just now being brought to trial. Given that all the charges weren’t even brought against him until March 1st, 2011 I seriously doubt he’s been properly arraigned.
That said, I’m no legal guru but I’m curious to know what the precedent is for waiting over half a year to even bring charges properly while the defendant is held in captivity without bail. So yeah, he did have charges brought against him. But not before his captors had a chance to work him over.
Before you get snippy at a rhetorical question, perhaps you need to check the facts yourself.
Omnes Omnibus
@Billy Bob Tweed: WTF?
Billy Bob Tweed
@Tim in SF:
My Fave So Far:
“Change We Can Believe In”
2nd Place:
“
KnowNo Hope.”Midnight Marauder
@Shoemaker-Levy 9:
Pooh
I am an attorney, and this is not a big deal at all. It’s also dumb, I think, to focus on what is essentially trivia at the expense of pointing out that the treatment of Manning is pretty monstrous. Freaking out over this leavens or taints the righteousness of that underlying outrage.
arguingwithsignposts
@Billy Bob Tweed: You keep fucking that chicken, Tweedy.
El Tiburon
@Shoemaker-Levy 9:
S
There really is no war. You have the same refrain from mostly the usual suspects: Greenwald is always right and only takes 100,000 million words to say it and he really has no influence anyway.
Those salvos attacking Greenwald’s substance are normally absent from any debate.
Also, the quibble was none too minor. Sure, in the big picture it’s probably not that big a deal what Obama said, but to just one-off it and pretend it is much ado about nothing is very wrong.
I guess, carrying it out a little further, Obama could have said, “He broke the law. Americans died and he emboldened our enemies.”
Right? I mean, what’s the big dealio? He can still get a fair trial and will not continue to be tortur, er, held in ‘harsh’ conditions.
El Tiburon
@Pooh:
I believe Greenwald was getting at that as well. The implication being, “hey, he’s guilty, so whatever on the harsh treatment…”
Superluminar
@Billy Bob Tweed
I think you’re missing the real outrage here, BHO’s inaction on animal rights. It’s all well and good talking about the “rights” of people, but what about non-people? The Dear Leaderbots here just care (or not…) about the people, but the nonhuman animals are just thrown beneath the nearest bus, because Obambi doesn ‘t care/ is captured by the meat-eaters within the admin. But noone gives a shit about this, not even Glenn :-(
Omnes Omnibus
@Zifnab: You will notice that his lawyer has not filed any motions alleging speedy trial violations, right? Think it is because of ineffective assistance of counsel or might it be because the lawyer doesn’t see grounds for it?
Pooh
@El Tiburon:
I agree with that, but the implication in the quoted bit, that somehow Obama opining on his guilt (as has been mentioned, I would think the fact of the confinement would have removed any question as to whether the administration thought he had done it…) precludes a fair trial is…I’m trying to find a word to encompass the sheer balls of it. I mean consider the irony of someone as bombastic as Greenwald suggesting that it is improper to make public statements asserting the correctness of a legal cause before the trial. THAT’S HIS ENTIRE CAREER.
sfrefugee
Undue command influence is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Because the President, as Commander in Chief is also likely the accuser here – he should not make statements about his preferred outcome.
Obama’s statement here is different than just failing to adhere to the usual “alleged perpetrator” language used by prosecutors and journalists. As CIC and as accuser, the President has a higher standard.
arguingwithsignposts
@Superluminar:
And what about his horrible record wrt vegetable rights? And let’s not even start talking about how he’s thrown the rocks under the bus!
dmbeaster
It does not seem to be a big deal here, but realize that it can become a big deal – a President could be making repeated and strong public statements concerning the guilt of an accused. We recognize such a thing as unfair pre-trial publicity making it hard for a defendant to get a fair trial. That this will be a military tribunal and the hearing officers under Obama’s command increases the risk. And when the President speaks, it has a lot more consequence than the usual pretrial noise about the guilt of an accused.
So its a judgment call about this issue, and the wording used. It has been a general custom for Presidents to avoid speaking about the guilt of the accused because of these issues. In this context it is not that significant, and the words were spoken off the cuff and without measured care.
El Tiburon
@OzoneR:
First off, you do understand there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and the person being factually wrong. That you don’t like what he says doesn’t make him wrong.
It is painfully obvious you either know nothing about Greenwald or are just too ignorant to understand what he writes. Using your stupid fucking analogy, then Greenwald would argue that whether it is legal or not, the law should be applied to everyone equally. So, if it’s illegal for Joe Six-Pack, then it should be illegal for Senator Fancy Pants and President Big Britches.
So, if you want to link to a post by Glenn Greenwald where he is wrong, please do so.
OzoneR
@sfrefugee:
Because clearly none of us know what the prosecutor’s preferred outcome is.
This is beyond ridiculous.
El Tiburon
@Pooh:
Um, I don’t think the administration makes the decision on whether or not to prosecute Manning. As President, Obama has certain tools (pardon, etc)to supersede the judiciary.@Pooh:
I don’t think you understand the underlying issue here. A lawyer or a prosecutor or a celebrity can rant and rave about Manning’s guilt all day and night. But a newscaster cannot. The judge in the case cannot. As Commander in Chief and President, Obama should not be making that call either.
OzoneR
@El Tiburon: Since Greenwald’s bases everything on his own opinions of what the law should say, he can never be “wrong”
Zifnab
@Omnes Omnibus:
I have no idea what motions the lawyer has or has not filed. Do you have a list somewhere I could reference?
OzoneR
@El Tiburon:
He is neither judge nor newscaster, this doesn’t make any sense.
Pooh
@OzoneR:
“I object to the prosecution’s entire opening statement as it presupposes my client’s guilt and irrevocably taints the jury.”
And look, I 100% agree with Greenwald on the underlying merits of Manning’s captivity, but GLENN GREENWALD is arguing that the first rule of Fight Club is not to talk about Fight Club here.
LongHairedWeirdo
The point here is every officer (above a certain level) serves “at the pleasure” of the President. He holds their military careers in his hands. He should have stuck to “he stands accused of serious crimes” (a true statement) rather than possibly signal officers that
he’d like someone to rid him of this priesthe expects a guilty verdict to be returned.Fred
John Galt…errr Cole fulfilling his quota of at least one Obama concern troll per day.
Fred
@mk387: In my world he is just another media douche bag trying to sell books.
Pooh
@El Tiburon:
Nonsense on stilts. Because he’s the president he can’t express opinions?
maya
Smell the taint.
tkogrumpy
@OzoneR: If that’s the case, you gotta get out more.
Omnes Omnibus
@Zifnab: Not off hand, but here is link to Manning’s lawyer’s blog post on speedy trials in the military. He is clearly aware of the issue. Actually, Coombs’s blog is a pretty good source of info on the case as a whole. One just has to remember that Coombs is filtering everything in a way that benefits his client (I do not criticize him for at all; it is what he is supposed to do.).
WarMunchkin
Innocent until proven guilty. Manning has not yet been proven and convicted on a count of breaking the law – regardless of whether you *think* he broke the law or not, you can’t engage in punitive actions until he is both charged and convicted, and you certainly cannot justify punitive action by saying that he broke the law (but of course, they don’t know which yet, they’re still trying to find a law to claim that he broke).
Paula
@Pooh:
lollerz
licensed to kill time
These threads are always so funny.
It’s like Greenbots vs. Obots vs. Mehbots.
OzoneR
@Pooh:
the odds of a judge throwing out the case based on that, forget about that being “he broke the law” is slim to none, especially in a military court.
I’ve heard DAs say “he broke the law” more times than I can count. Today alone I saw the Queens DA do that.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
@El Tiburon:
Yes, and referencing my comment on character assassination I see one of the suspects keeping the discussion light, bright, and sparkling up at #91. John has expressed distaste when this sort of sewage ends up in his comment section, which is why I suggested he not even bring up Greenwald unless it’s a profound agreement or disagreement.
Omnes Omnibus
@WarMunchkin: They are still looking? Then why have they charged him with crimes?
soonergrunt
@cleek: Now there’s an unpleasant mental image.
@Omnes Omnibus:
That requirement has never really been that important here at Balloon-Juice, has it?
@Billy Bob Tweed: You are just tragically stupid. Did your parents have any children who actually lived?
eemom
this thread is a masterpiece of hilarity. Good job Cole, you old troll you.
Omnes Omnibus
@Zifnab: Also too, my apologies for the snippiness. Any Manning thread always results in someone saying that he hasn’t been charged; someone always posts a link to show that he has been, etc. I snapped. FWIW from what I have read and seen, it appears that Manning did release the information and he did it without authorization. This means that he probably broke the law. Whether he is guilty or can be found guilty will depend on a lot of things that happen at his trial, if he has one. One of the issues that has caused delay has been questions regarding his competence to stand trial. This leads me to believe that even if he is found competent, the defense may seek to base some parts of his defense around his mental state. Given this, it would not be in the prosecution’s interest to do anything which damages Manning’s mental health. Anyway, I am not reaching any real conclusions here, just offering some observations.
Maude
@Omnes Omnibus:
He is the source about Manning’s treatment by the military. Coombs is a good defense lawyer because he has deflected the attention from the charges against Manning. He gets kudos.
soonergrunt
@Martin: This is Balloon-Juice. Our reality isn’t like others.
Famous athletes are guilty of rape on the flimsiest of accusations, even after those accusations are known to be unfounded, and Bradley Manning is innocent, regardless of what Bradley Manning himself may have actually claimed or what the government has specified in the charges against him.
Omnes Omnibus
@Maude: Yes, I think, from what I have seen of his work, that he is doing a pretty good job. Ultimately, though, the case is not tried in the court of public opinion, but in a military courtroom.
soonergrunt
@WarMunchkin: Behold, the CHARGE SHEET, detailing the charges and specifications against PFC Manning. It was posted by…wait for it…The Bradley Manning Support Network. That took the simple googling of the phrase “Bradley Manning Charge Sheet”.
tkogrumpy
@Pooh: I think you’ll find there is a shit load of things the presidentcan’t do because he’s president.
chopper
of course if obama had said that dubya ‘broke the law’ in any of his numerous cases of, well, breaking the law, greenwald would jizz his pants in glee.
but that’s neither here nor there.
soonergrunt
@LongHairedWeirdo: You are so very eloquent. It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
To sum up the balloonbagger ethos – “We are not a nation of laws. And we are not a nation of men. We are a nation of one man, a good man – President Obama – and only Him, and whatever He says, goes. It’s really no biggie, so deal with it. Things could be a lot worse. Hey, look over there!”
.
.
Omnes Omnibus
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: Traditionally, when one sums up, one tries to accurately reflect what has been said previously. You, however, have opted for a nontraditional approach; I think that was very brave of you.
tkogrumpy
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: @Omnes Omnibus: LMAO, much better than my edited response.
soonergrunt
@WarMunchkin: And under the UCMJ, the ONLY remedy for unlawful punishment is reduction of adjudged confinement. If he’s acquitted, there’s nothing for it.
@Omnes Omnibus: Where is the bravery in talking about how much one loves pie?
Omnes Omnibus
@soonergrunt: The mix of berries, quite risque.
Anne Laurie
@aimai:
Ain’t that the depressing truth.
Back last Friday, I spent almost three hours working on a long post (which I intended to title ‘Flamebait’) sparked by Obama’s imperial dismissal of the self-described ‘trust fund brats’ and their weaksauce attempt at mau-mauing. I thought that might be construed as ‘piling on’, in the immediate aftermath of the Guantanamo file release.
Because there is a giant carcasse in the discussion from which we are all politely averting our eyes: Manning is not being punished for his ‘crimes’, he’s being punished to discourage future whistleblowers. It doesn’t matter to the Executive Officer of the current imperial presidency whether or not some PFC can be convicted of releasing information that he shouldn’t have been able to access in the first place; it matters that any potential doubleplusungood perpetrator be assured that wrongthought will be punished. Manning may not have been found ‘guilty’ under military codes, but he is most definitely guilty of causing trouble for the Authority.
And Obama, extremely smart person and constitutional law scholar, knows that he can say this in a public venue while being recorded and still be re-elected President with the assistance of votes from liberals/progressives/DFHs like us. The Presidential limo might as well sport a bumper sticker: “Obama 2012 — where else are you gonna go?”
calling all toasters
I agree that this is no big deal– when compared to the general raping Bush and Obama have given the Constitution, this is like shoplifting.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@Omnes Omnibus:
.
.
I will quote your incorrect dumbassery back to you. It won’t make you correct, it will merely demonstrate the fact- and evidence-free nature of your comment – “Traditionally, when one sums up, one tries to accurately reflect what has been said previously. You, however, have opted for a nontraditional approach; I think that was very brave of you.” BTW, I don’t think it was brave of you to lie about my accuracy. I absolutely think it was “balloonbaggerish” though. It’s what “you people” excel at.
.
.
OzoneR
@aimai:
which you’re not gonna get from a comment from the person leading the prosecution. Do you people ever listen to DAs before cases? You’d be horrified.
El Tiburon
@OzoneR:
Sure greenwald can be wrong. And he has so admitted it. He bases his opinions on the law based upon what the statutes and other legal precedents say about that law.
As far as the warrantless wiretapping law, it is very straightforward. If you really want to make the case that the Bush administration did not break that law, most legal scholars would say you were wrong. But if you misstated what was contained in the law, then you would be 100percent wrong. And Therefore your conclusions would be wrong as well.
soonergrunt
You do realize that the ease of committing a crime has no bearing on whether it is, in fact, a crime, right? Because the corollary would be that we shouldn’t convict for rape or murder unless the victim fought back.
Corner Stone
@Anne Laurie:
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: It may or may not have been brave, but it was pretty clear.
Corner Stone
@existential fish:
Fuck you, you fucking punk bitch. I just fucked your mother, and her two sisters.
Now. Did I fuck the three of them?
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus:
What I notice, which I am sure you do as well, is that his lawyer is giving his ethical best to represent him. The best way he possibly can.
That is ALL we can infer from his attorney’s actions or lack thereof.
I’ve seen a thousand lawyers use ten thousand strategies.
Cacti
Greenwald has his panties in a bunch about Bradley Manning. Stop the presses.
In other news, concern troll is concerned.
cat48
The prez should now know that no matter how friendly the host of the DNC sponsored breakfast fundraiser or the attendees; he must never, never trust anyone who attends one of these things. They’re not his friends. He should NEVER pretend they are…another lesson learned by interacting with rich white folks.
Corner Stone
@OzoneR: Oh, wow. The Queens DA did that? Holy shit! I am stunned right down to my motherfucking toes.
OzoneR
@El Tiburon:
when did I bring up warrantless wiretapping?
Corner Stone
@Midnight Marauder: It’s a tiny little dial kid.
Corner Stone
@Cacti: Yeah! That’s the worstest thing in the world! Also, too!
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Since you are reading through all the comments, you will have noticed my subsequent comments.
Corner Stone
@OzoneR:
So…the local DA will be trying this case in civilian court then?
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus:
He’ll get to it. If the clean rags hold out.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: Too true amigo. Too true.
Maine Independent
@jeff: Why would you vote for someone you strenuously disagree with? I doubt that people, such as myself who voted for the empty suit/traitor Obomber in 2008, will not vote for him again because of this one issue (although it is enough).
There are so many other important issues regarding the LAW, such as prosecuting the Bush War Criminals and the Bankster and Wall Street Criminals, that Obomber is failing on, totally.
The fact that he can get up and start talking about “the magic of 2008” when possibly 10 MILLION people will have lost their homes to foreclosure by 2012 is outrageous. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for him again. I will not go that route; I’ll write in, vote for a Green or Progressive, never a Rethug, but I am done with Obomber, for good.
Cacti
@Corner Stone:
I know.
Bradley Manning is the worstest treated person in the history of anything anywhere.
And…Free Mumia!
Corner Stone
@General Stuck: Isn’t there fellating to be done somewhere? Someone told me that was the only thing you were good at.
Can’t remember where I heard it though…
Corner Stone
@Cacti: Yes! Free Mumia!
And other stupid nonsense! Free that nonsense too!
OzoneR
@Maine Independent:
I doubt that you matter.
Lolis
@El Tiburon:
Here is a Greenwald EPIC fail:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html
Greenwald simply does not share my values. I have a brother-in-law who came to the US illegally. Don’t be talking smack about my family.
General Stuck
@Corner Stone:
LOL, I don’t think you could survive a second Obama term CS. Somebody will find you hanging in yer closet in a wetsuit, with a Hillary pic, and a smile on your face.
Meanwhile, GO TEAM OBAMA !! Anyone don’t like that can kiss my hillbilly ass, and twice on Sunday. Proud Obama supporter here, and certainly not in a cult for the pathological lying blogger that is Glen Greenwald. He can eat my Unicorn dust, all of it, no exceptions. And so can you, for a fee.
FUCK YEA!
ML
Cole: If Obama shit on your living room rug, you would praise the smell of roses.
eemom
@Anne Laurie:
fixeteth
General Stuck
@eemom:
This ain’t no blog, It’s an inquisition.
El Tiburon
@OzoneR:
You didn’t bring up wiretapping. I was using it as an example.
currants
@Chris: ABSOLUTELY THIS.
or are we now guilty until proven innocent? The deal is you get charged, you get tried, ALL BEFORE you get punished.
El Tiburon
@Lolis:
Hope you are kidding, otherwise you are either one of the stupidest people on the planet or a troll for passing along this obvious ripoff.
different church-lady
OK, I’ve just read through all the comments and I’ve reached a very definite conclusion: everyone thinks what they think, and nobody actually knows a G-Damn thing.
BOSS BITCH
Oh please. Ya’ll (as in the blogosphere) went through the same “discussion” over his comments on KSM. Is KSM a free man? was his trial corrupted in any way by Obama’s comment?
BOSS BITCH
@different church-lady:
this is true for every blog thread everywhere.
Corner Stone
@BOSS BITCH: BITCH, do you mean KSM, the guy they tortured to insanity?
Cacti
Have the firebaggers finished their circle jerk?
soonergrunt
@Cacti: The firebaggers will never finish their circle jerk. It’s what they do.
Corner Stone
@soonergrunt: Wah wah waaaahhhhh
Joe Buck
When Nixon said that Charles fucking Manson was guilty before he’d been tried, it was a scandal and even someone as contemptuous of law as John Mitchell recognized that. They immediately apologized and backed off. And in that case, an independent branch of government, and not people who are supposed to say “sir, yes sir” when the President says something, was responsible for trying the case. John, it’s appalling that you don’t get this, but you started out as a conservative authoritarian, so I suppose switching to an Obama-following authoritarian isn’t a big step for you.
Manning hasn’t been found guilty of anything, and Obama proclaimed his guilt as a justification for the harsh treatment (torture according to many) that he is receiving. Verdict first, then the punishment, trial when we get around to it and have suitably tainted the officers who will try the case.
JMY
Cole, you should refrain from making threads like these from now on. Nothing good ever comes from it.
Corner Stone
@JMY:
What do you mean? They clearly delineate the authoritarian assholes posting here.
They step up and shout “Present!” so all the rest of us can mark them for future threads.
I think they’re pretty useful.
OzoneR
@currants:
you’ve never seen the holding cells at Rikers, have you?
soonergrunt
@sfrefugee:
This betrays a pretty large ignorance of the military justice system.
The President is not the accuser. The accuser is (or will be) the lead CID/MPI investigator, and when the Article 32 investigation is complete, the Article 32 Investigating Officer.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Omnes Omnibus:
THIS!
And that Greenwald cannot admit to this tells me that he’s far too biased to be taken seriously.
Triassic Sands
That’s because the presumption of innocence is a lot quainter than the Geneva Conventions at this point. We routinely convict people without evidence. Obama has no business proclaiming someone who hasn’t had a trial “guilty.” It’s stupid, ignorant, and completely inappropriate…and typical of Americans.
Why would anyone even try to excuse such behavior on the part of a president…any president?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Maude:
Sure, he’s been working his ass off in the court of public opinion. How this helps his client in the court martial is probably a lot more important to Manning and his family than it is to Greenwald and pals.
OzoneR
@Lolis: Wow…Is this really him?
wow.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Omnes Omnibus:
FIFY
mclaren
Secret trials held in secret courts with evidence from people who were tortured to get it.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Anne Laurie:
Ooh! Ooh! When do we get to connect the dots to the Masons, the Skulls, and the Discordians?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Anne Laurie:
Sorry, Anne Laurie, and I’ve said this hundreds of time before if I’ve said it once, but the vast majority of what Manning allegedly downloaded and released- more than 260,000 classified files- cannot, in any way, be construed as whistleblowing, if for no other reason than that there’s no way that Manning could have even read through all of those documents to have found instances of wrongdoing in them.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@El Tiburon:
Uh, no, that’s where Glenn published (well, with the exception of some CATO Institute articles) before Salon picked him up in ’07. No ripoff.
Sad But True
@Corner Stone:
You pretty much nailed my reaction to this and earlier Greenwald threads.
I do think that the Obama loyalists are decreasing in number, even if their total number of posts haven’t. But even though I think each Greenwald thread is a little different than the one preceding it, they’re still just as depressing, because the reason that fewer and fewer commenters show up to vigorously defend the administration’s conduct re: civil rights is that the administration’s conduct re: civil rights is increasingly indefensible.
AAA Bonds
How about this, John: as a non-lawyer prole, I trust the lawyers on this one, not the non-lawyers.
AAA Bonds
For what it’s worth, I believe that when when Obama reversed on military tribunals, all chances of Constitutional rights being reinstated under Obama went to zero.
Expect nothing but expansion of the power to deprive citizens of life, liberty, and property without due process, through this administration, and likely the one following it.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Joe Buck:
Oh, you’re right- that’s why I use “alleged” all of the time when regarding Manning’s alleged downloading and alleged release to WikiLeaks of classified documents.
HOWEVER, if you read through the thousands of blog posts and comments made by most of Manning’s most ardent supporters (I’ll point you to Anne Laurie’s comment above), you’ll rarely see the words “alleged” or “allegedly”- there seems to be an assumption that he did, in fact, download and release those documents to WikiLeaks.
Why is it wrong for Obama to say that Manning broke the law, but it’s alright for Manning’s supporters to say the same thing?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@AAA Bonds:
And how much of that reversal was based on Congress’ vote (what was it in the Senate, 92-4?) to block the transfer of Gitmo prisoners to the US?
mclaren
@Sad But True:
“Increasingly?”
When Obama ordered the assassination of a U.S.citizen without charges or a trial or even accusing him of a crime, how does anyone even begin to defend that?
Obama started off last year by signing an executive order to kidnap American citizens without charges and hurl ’em into a dungeon forever, with no trial and no access to a lawyer.
That’s a gross violation of the 5th and 6th and 8th and 14th amendments of the constitution.
What more could Obama do to violate the constitution than he already has?
I honestly can’t think of anything Obama could do to tear up the constitution and wipe his ass with it more than he’s done already, except possibly by ordering troops to be quartered in private homes. That would violate the third amendment, and I don’t think Obama or Bush have gotten around to violating that amendment yet. But that’s the only one.
Fourth amendment, gone, what with TSA warrantless searches and property forfeiture and warrantless wiretapping.
First amendment is gone, what is protesters corralled into “speech zones.”
Second amendment, obviously gone, since the feds need only arrest someone “on suspicion” and they’ll be flagged in a database and turned down for a gun ownership permit.
Fifth, sixth amendments, due process and right to trial by jury –those are already gone. Bush erased ’em and Obama has follwed along in Bush’s footsteps.
Eighth amendment, gone –America is now the world’s torturer.
So what’s left of the Bill of Rights?
Almost nothing.
Next step: the Three Minute Hate, show trials (oh, wait, no we’re getting those with the rigged kangaroo courts at Gitmo), parents taught to inform on their children and kids taught to turn in their parents…right out of the Orwellian 1984 playbook.
mclaren
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
We’ve arrived at a degraded state where the mere accusation itself has become proof of guilt.
One of the final stages of descent into a totalitarian society.
“Don’t worry, citizen–these measures are only being taken against hooligans who have insulted the dignity of the state…and only for the duration of the emergency!”
AAA Bonds
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
That doesn’t seem relevant to my conclusion. I do not blame Congress for the actions of the U.S. Attorney General, who serves at the pleasure of the President.
FlipYrWhig
@Sad But True:
It can’t possibly be that it ceased to be interesting to discuss Actes and Monumentes of Ye Martyrdom Of Bradley Mannyng His Under-breeches long, long, LONG ago. Glenn Greenwald got excited about something related to Bradley Manning? Well, land sakes, that IS news! Surely this time we’ll hash it out once and for all, and then O-bots and Green-bots will break bread at the table of universal brotherhood.
Hopefully one day Andrew Sullivan will say something about Bradley Manning, someone on the front page here will link to it, and the whole Manning-Sullivan-Greenwald-McArdle zone of reality will crumple on itself and permanently detach from this one. More so, I mean.
different church-lady
@mclaren:
People who have actually read Orwell will note that you’ve added a minute to the hate.
FlipYrWhig
@different church-lady: Sounds about right.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@mclaren:
That’s a load of shit.
Here’s the fact of the matter- Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange and everyone who unquestionably goes along with what WikiLeaks is attempting- which is far more than whistleblowing, but an invasion upon the rights of any sovereign entity to keep any sort of secret for any reason- needs someone to go to trial in order to justify their own philosophies of the absolute subjugation of the rights of a society to the rights of the individual. That is, they- Assange and Greenwald- are attempting to override mankind’s natural state as a species that survives through its interdependence of its constituent parts and replace it with a system where any part may remove itself at any time for any reason, yet still benefit from labor of those who choose to remain part of the whole- and they’re willing to sacrifice Bradley Manning to conduct their little experiment in anarchy/libertarianism.
different church-lady
@FlipYrWhig: Now that I think about it, mclaren is actually adding several months to the hate, one comment at a time.
Ben Wolf
Sorry if someone has already addressed this, but Manning has not confessed. So stop saying he did.
soonergrunt
@Ben Wolf: Yes, that was addressed and dispensed with as the bullshit it is.
I suppose you could legalese your way out of it by pointing out that there’s no signed confession amongst the publicly available trial paperwork, but there is a huge record of him bragging about what he did and how he did it, that is butressed by the actions of others–Wikileaks releasing documents and other items that he bragged about stealing and giving to them, for example.
Thank you for playing. Play harder next time.
rickstersherpa
Actually, the President is wrong about what Daniel Ellsberg and Antony Russo was pretty much the same thing that Private Manning is alleged to have done. And they would have been prosecuted and sent to jail for revealing classified information but for the Nixon Administration illegal methods in pursuing the prosecution (breaking and entering into his pscyhistrist’s office, illegal wiretappeing, the list goes on and on
From Wikipedia’s article on the Pentagon Papers “- Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston and admitted that he had given the papers to the press. He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles.[9] Federal District Judge Byrne declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg [and Russo] on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government’s case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal.[3] Byrne ruled: “The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case.”
As for the President, it would have been better if the President had used “alleged” before saying “broken the law.” But as John says, it is not a big deal, at least not a big deal compared to the the unusual pre-trial incarceration Manning has been subjected to the last few months. Probably, it goes to Glenn’s current hobby horse that there is no difference between Obama and Dubya (wish someone would tell Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Brietbart) and that there will be no difference if President Pawlenty or Romney is elected next November. (Again, the Koch brothers, John Paulson, Pete Petersen, and Stephen Schwartzman all disagree with that assumption as, according to today’s WSJ, they are putting tens of millions to support the GOP next November.)
Finally, I don’t know if Glenn really understands (or care to understands the military court martial system. The military jurors will be voir dired about this whether they heard or were aware of this statement and whether they can still give a fair trial to Private Manning, giving him the presumption of innoncence. Further, whenever someone is “referred” to a General Court Martial, it is because the General Court Martial convening authority (a General officer usually) has made the decision that the accused is probably guilty and should stand trial on the charges. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but one does not put people you believe are innocent through the ordeal of a trial.
I could not get to the article
rickstersherpa
I think this incident, and a couple of others, reveal something about the President in that he is not at his strongest in off the cuff comments that he has not thought seriously about or studied. Like Lincoln, (and I am not saying he is like or as good as Lincoln (although the real Lincoln with suspension of habeas corpus, military commissions for Copperheads, summary executions of Southern irregulars (also known as bushwackers), tolerance of starvation of southern POWs, and burnings of southern cities, towns, and farms and driving the civilian population before probably is not Glenn’s favorite President), Obama’s mind is methodical and he works best when he can study an issue extensively.
Although for Glenn, Manning and Wikileaks have been his life the last 9 months, the President has had a few other things on his plate. So I don’t think Private Manning and his fate as been the focust of Obama’s thoughts.
Corner Stone
@soonergrunt: So pleased this is our new standard of evidence. Bragging online.
Shit, I’m surprised I’m not in gitmo by now.
Corner Stone
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): This may be the most ridiculous nonsense I’ve read here recently.
El Tiburon
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
You are correct and I was wrong. I made an incorrect assumption. It won’t be the last time, I am sure.
It appears Greenwald did write that. While I find it reprehensible, I did read his explanation for that post on his twitter feed. I accept his reasoning and his subsequent denunciation of those remarks. I can accept it because there was also a time I was uneducated (in the ways of politics and propaganda)and even voted for W. in 2000.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Corner Stone:
Really?
Like Smith’s free market, Assange’s theory seems very nice when applied to a theoretical perfect world. The problem is that in a world filled with imperfect humans, societies have a compelling interest to keep some secrets. Can a system employed to keep secrets be abused? Certainly- but the way to perfect the system involves tweezers (like leaking the “Collateral Murder” footage), not sledgehammers (dumping 260K unfiltered documents).