Skip to main content

View Diary: White House Bans Reporter For Filming Bradley Manning Protest (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  first of all, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vacantlook, m00finsan

    he has not been tried or convicted of anything except in the court of public opinion, and if he's going to be subjected to a military commission, then it's highly inappropriate that the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military would weigh in by saying that Manning is guilty before a trial has even happened.  How can he expect to receive a fair trial now?

    Second, whether he broke the law is irrelevant to the issue of how he is being treated while in custody.

    Third, there's evidence that the Universal Code of Military Justice has been breached, as Article 13 states that a prisoner cannot be punished pre-trial -- and subjecting him to months of solitary confinement without even giving him a trial is unnecessary punishment.  His lawyer may still file a habeas complaint for the conditions of his detention at Quantico.

    Fourth, if you don't have sympathy for Manning's plight simply because he's accused of breaking the law (let alone convicted), on what grounds would you have to complain if someone else was imprisoned but punished unnecessarily for the same reason?  If a poor black civilian were arrested and locked away for distributing pot, and then mistreated while in prison, would you then say that you don't have sympathy for his plight?

    •  You can excuse it all you want (3+ / 0-)

      He is a military officer accused of breaching national security under military law.

      If it's inappropriate for the President to say what you have claimed he said, then I'm inappropriate too.  It's my opinion, too.

      Also it is my opinion that it is his breaking of the law that has garnered these actions against him, however unfortunate.  He did so knowingly and he did so knowing what would be in store for him.

      We can't have our military arbitrarily deciding to breach national security.  I'm not stupid, either.  I know the ways of the world and I am sure that our government does a lot of crap in my name that I would never approved of if it hit the light of day.

      What Manning did was NOT the way to go about it and we just can't say that the information revealed should excuse his alleged crime.

      Lastly, distributing pot or any other drug doesn't rise to the level of breaching national security in a military uniform.  Sorry but that is a false equilvent.  Military officers are held to a higher standard than the civilian population for a reason.   Furthermore, with respect to black people in the criminal justice system, the problem is institutional and systematic and hardly compares to a military officer threatening national security.  You are talking apples and oranges in your attempt to defend what he is being accused of.

      I'm sorry but it doesn't wash for me.

      "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

      by smoothnmellow on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 02:23:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  talk about excusing and false equivalences.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        m00finsan, Plox
        If it's inappropriate for the President to say what you have claimed he said, then I'm inappropriate too.  It's my opinion, too.

        No, it's not inappropriate in your case -- to the extent that you're not a member of Manning's jury.  You're a private civilian.  You hold no political power, and no direct power to determine if Manning should receive a civilian trial, a military commission, or be held indefinitely with neither.  Obama does.  And if he goes to a military commission, how on earth could Manning be expected to receive a fair trial if the Commander in Chief has already decided his guilt before a trial has begun?

        Or do you think it was okay when Richard Nixon did the same thing with regard to Charles Manson before Manson was tried or convicted?  His own Attorney General, John Mitchell, didn't think so.

        Lastly, distributing pot or any other drug doesn't rise to the level of breaching national security in a military uniform.  Sorry but that is a false equilvent.  Military officers are held to a higher standard than the civilian population for a reason.

        So what?  The degree of the crime isn't important here.  You said you have no sympathy for Manning's imprisonment on the ground that he broke the law and should have known the consequences.  Distributing pot is also breaking the law.  One with smaller penalties than what Manning is accused of doing, yeah, but the point is that I don't see how you claim to be sympathetic to one case but not the other, especially when the accused hasn't been tried or convicted of any crime.

        If distributing pot isn't big enough a crime, replace it with it being accused of murder.  Murder has a much higher level of consequences, surely on or close to the same level for you as a breach of national security (and whether Manning harmed national security is highly questionable).  If a President weighed by declaring someone guilty of murder before a trial was convened and before the defendant was convicted (like Nixon did, as described above), would you say, "Well, I don't have any sympathy for what he did"?  What if he were wrongly convicted?  What if he were mistreated while in prison?

        •  It most certainly IS appropriate. (0+ / 0-)

          You don't get to dictate my personal opinion.

          There is nothing to be said to you on this matter.  You have made an assumption that this guy is not going to tried under military law.

          One thing is true about the military.  They serve to uphold democracy.  Not to practice it.  

          People signing on to that duty should know this.

          "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

          by smoothnmellow on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 06:22:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  To answer your questions. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hopeful human, DollyMadison, Fogiv
      How can he expect to receive a fair trial now?

      Because it's extaordinarily unlikely anyone on the jury even saw the barely audible clip. And even if any of them did it's absurd to suggest it would be a factor in their virdict.

      Second, whether he broke the law is irrelevant to the issue of how he is being treated while in custody.

      Even though a bunch of you cry a river for Manning an nobody else at Quanico, Manning wasn't the only person being held in maximum custody. Manning wasn't the only person on prevention of injury watch.  

      Third, there's evidence that the Universal Code of Military Justice has been breached, as Article 13 states that a prisoner cannot be punished pre-trial -- and subjecting him to months of solitary confinement without even giving him a trial is unnecessary punishment.

      He was never in solitary confinement.

      "The Green Bay Packers failed to score 8 times in the Super Bowl." -- Purity

      by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 03:45:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site