Bradley Manning not being tortured anymore?

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Post #11 is total nonsense. “Poisoning the well,” my ass.

Post #17.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Posy 17 is completely non-responsive. No one can come up with a reason why it’s terrible for the President to state a fact as a fact, and the facts of this case are not really in dispute.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No one can come up with a reason why it’s terrible for the President to state a fact as a fact, and the facts of this case are not really in dispute.

I imagine Manning’s attorney feels differently.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Posy 17 is completely non-responsive. No one can come up with a reason why it’s terrible for the President to state a fact as a fact, and the facts of this case are not really in dispute.

You’re right. We don’t need a trial.

[Simplicio]

Once a person is charged with a crime by the DoJ (or in this case, the DoD), doesn’t that more or less make the opinion that they’re guilty the “official” position of the executive branch? If so, I don’t really see the problem with the President stating that opinion.

Obviously they still shouldn’t be able to exact any punishment on the defendant until that person is found guilty (as they appear to have failed to do in the case of Manning), but it seems a little silly to insist that the executive branch has to pretend to be agnostic about someones guilt or innocence at the same time that they’re presumably doing their upmost to argue in court that the person is in fact guilty.

[John_Mace]

@Simplicio

Once a person is charged with a crime by the DoJ (or in this case, the DoD), doesn’t that more or less make the opinion that they’re guilty the “official” position of the executive branch? If so, I don’t really see the problem with the President stating that opinion.

No, because they pick and choose judges. It’s is not the official position of the judges (nor of the jurors).

Also, this will be a military trial, with the judges (and, I assume the jury) under the authority of the Commander in Chief.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John_Mace

You’re right. We don’t need a trial.

What does one thing have to do with another.

By the way. It looks an awful lot like you were declaring Manning to be guilty in this post.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What does one thing have to do with another.

You’re right. A trial has nothing to do with deciding the facts of the case.

By the way. It looks an awful lot like you were declaring Manning to be guilty in this post.

I’ll be more careful once I’m elected president. The link doesn’t work for me, btw.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Simplicio

Once a person is charged with a crime by the DoJ (or in this case, the DoD), doesn’t that more or less make the opinion that they’re guilty the “official” position of the executive branch? If so, I don’t really see the problem with the President stating that opinion.

I think it’s more accurate to characterize their position as the belief that they have enough evidence to prove to a court or a jury that Manning has committed a crime. But they don’t get to determine guilt. They’re part of a process, and it’s disrespectful to that process to shoot your mouth off about the guilt of the accused before the case has been adjudicated (note that the opposite would not be true, as everyone is presumed innocent).

[Snarky_Kong]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Post #11 is total nonsense. “Poisoning the well,” my ass.

Can you admit that you were wrong about all the reasons being “it’s stupid?”

[John_Mace]

@MOIDALIZE

I think it’s more accurate to characterize their position as the belief that they have enough evidence to prove to a court or a jury that Manning has committed a crime. But they don’t get to determine guilt. They’re part of a process, and it’s disrespectful to that process to shoot your mouth off about the guilt of the accused before the case has been adjudicated (note that the opposite would not be true, as everyone is presumed innocent).

What happens “all the time” is that you see presidents (and governors, as appropriate) being very careful to say something like “if BADGUY is found guilty…” or “BDAGUY has allegedly…”. Anyone who hasn’t seen the chief executive being very careful not to presume guilt just hasn’t been paying attention.

Why give the defense a reason to call for a mistrial, change of venue, challenge jurors, or otherwise use legal technicalities to thwart or stall the trial.

[Captain_Amazing]

@John_Mace

I’d be surprised if he did. Nixon may have been a crook, but he wasn’t stupid.

A cite would clear that up definitively, if you’ve got one.

This looks like it:

And this Time Magazine article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909547-3,00.html

Verbal Fencing. It was in Denver’s Federal Building that President Nixon committed the startling gaffe of prejudging the case of Charles Manson. While complaining that the press had made Manson a glamorous hero, Nixon said: “Here was a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.” For a lawyer who occasionally delivers homilies on legal propriety, this was a serious breach.

Attorney General John Mitchell, who was standing at Nixon’s side, instantly recognized Nixon’s error. “This has got to be clarified,” he told Presidential Aide John Ehrlichman immediately afterward. Unhappily, what ensued was a series of errors compounded by instant communications. Startled reporters dashed to the pressroom, and within minutes, the bulletins were moving across the land. The statement was filmed and broadcast later on network television, with a clarification appended.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Snarky_Kong

Can you admit that you were wrong about all the reasons being “it’s stupid?”

Sure.

[John_Mace]

@Captain_Amazing

This looks like it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0LBMPXJxTs

And this Time Magazine article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909547-3,00.html

OK. But note that this is treated as something unusual and improper. So it’s good evidence against the argument that this is no big deal and happens all the time. Rather, it happens rarely and is followed up with a “clarification”.

[Grumman]

I think this is relevant…

[

@The Telegraph

The [Wikileaks] files detail the background to the capture of each of the 780 people who have passed through the Guantanamo facility in Cuba, their medical condition and the information they have provided during interrogations.
…
At least a further 150 people are innocent Afghans or Pakistanis, including farmers, chefs and drivers who were rounded up or even sold to US forces and transferred across the world. In the top-secret documents, senior US commanders conclude that in dozens of cases there is “no reason recorded for transfer”.

](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8471907/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-Bay-terrorist-secrets-revealed.html)
Even if Manning is technically guilty of a crime, the crime he is accused of is that he refused to keep secrets for an organisation that, among other things, has kidnapped more than a hundred innocent people. These people cannot be trusted with the power to operate without oversight.

[Zakalwe]

@MOIDALIZE

It’s about the impropriety of our highest elected official poisoning the well in regards to the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant in a country where nobody is supposed to be considered guilty until proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even the leaders of a fake democracy should have enough sense to at least pretend like the rules matter. The government’s pre-trial treatment of Manning speaks volumes.

I know MOIDALIZE has responded to several other posts, but I felt the need to quote this for truth. Obama fucked up.