*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, April 22nd, 2011 11:30am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

I think Manning broke the law, and should live with the consequences. What he did amounts to civil disobedience at best, and treason at worst.

The black woman that sat in the white mans seat broke the law.


also "I dont make the laws" well in actual fact obama is in a positoin to make laws maby not 100% directly but the piont of being president is that you can have large sway and influance on law making and so you are partly responsable for how the systemworks.

As far as i understand under US Law you cannot be indefintly imprissoind without fair trile.
obama has undertaken and suported operations in outher countries that are against there laws so in those cases should obama be in jail then ?


Simply saying he broke the law is not a satisfactory retort to counter sum-one asking why anther person is being held without proper trile and as to why he is being tortured.

....
Non of that matters anyway the simple fact is If you have enough money the law only applies to you if you piss off people with more money than you.

Hah, I was just about to submit this as well. *quality Obama, right here.

Pfc Manning has not been tried nor convicted, yet the CINC, who taught constitutional law, publicly declares him guilty. That's delicious.

To claim that you "don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate" after he decided not to prosecute Bush for all the shit, CIA officials for destroying their torture tapes, the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, etc ... that's delicious as well.

And no, the Ellsberg papers were not classified the same way as the ones Pfc Manning allegedly leaked: they were top secret, Manning's were "just" classified.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by radx.

He may have broken the law or not, but he hasn't been charged with anything, he hasn't been tried, he was just thrown into a cell and seemingly forgotten.

"He broke the law" that's not for you to say, that's for courts to say!

The Obamateur's thoughtless comments could cause a future mistrial.

This was supposed to be a fund-raiser. Then someone jumps him with an unexpected question and everyone whips out their camera phones to put this on the internet. If you think Obama is being short and blunt, it's because he is and it's intentional. His every word will be scrutinized by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and plenty of foreign news agencies.

Imagine being invited to a party and while you're there someone pulls out a camera to ask you your position on controversial issue x. You have no prep time and what you say can't be taken back because it's going to be available for the world to see within minutes.

As for Manning, he's not being held indefinitely and he's not in some secret holding cell. He's in Kansas. And his pre-trail hearing is in May. For those of you who think he's some sort of reincarnated Rosa Parks, here are his own words, "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" or how about, "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history...i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?"

He did it simply because he was bored, he could, and he hated his crappy job with the Army sitting in front of a computer all day in the middle of a freaking desert. He ended up getting caught because he bragged about it wanting hacker fame.

Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning's lucky that the prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty, which 'Aiding the Enemy' (one of the 23 charges against him) carries.

He is the president its a pritty simple question you dont need prep time thats the whole issue with polatics is that polatitoins can just say smarmy bullshit and get away with it. noone has a clue as to what or who abama is or what he realy wants to do .

>> ^Morganth:

This was supposed to be a fund-raiser. Then someone jumps him with an unexpected question and everyone whips out their camera phones to put this on the internet. If you think Obama is being short and blunt, it's because he is and it's intentional. His every word will be scrutinized by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and plenty of foreign news agencies.
Imagine being invited to a party and while you're there someone pulls out a camera to ask you your position on controversial issue x. You have no prep time and what you say can't be taken back because it's going to be available for the world to see within minutes.
As for Manning, he's not being held indefinitely and he's not in some secret holding cell. He's in Kansas. And his pre-trail hearing is in May. For those of you who think he's some sort of reincarnated Rosa Parks, here are his own words, "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" or how about, "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history...i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?"
He did it simply because he was bored, he could, and he hated his crappy job with the Army sitting in front of a computer all day in the middle of a freaking desert. He ended up getting caught because he bragged about it wanting hacker fame.
Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning's lucky that the prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty, which 'Aiding the Enemy' (one of the 23 charges against him) carries.

a nation of laws ... true.
who writes the laws? ummm...for the most part, paid lobbyists.

He doesn't need prep time...he knows exactly what to say because he's briefed on these questions because they can come up at any time. I started to not like Obama because he's just continuing on Bush policies and being a typical president. Now I'm starting to really hate Obama and I'm pretty sure I'd vote for anyone else now.

Where's that Obama army now anyways? We need them to defeat this bastard.

I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.

If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

Glenn Greenwald commented on it, elaborating on the three disturbing issues I mentioned yesterday as well.

Remember when we used to hold freedom of speech as the greatest virtue of a free society?

>> ^blankfist:

Remember when we used to hold freedom of speech as the greatest virtue of a free society?


this is the strawest man ever lol.

all this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

>> ^Matthu:

>> ^blankfist:
Remember when we used to hold freedom of speech as the greatest virtue of a free society?

this is the strawest man ever lol.
all this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.


And that's how you lose.

>> ^Morganth:

This was supposed to be a fund-raiser. Then someone jumps him with an unexpected question and everyone whips out their camera phones to put this on the internet. If you think Obama is being short and blunt, it's because he is and it's intentional. His every word will be scrutinized by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and plenty of foreign news agencies.
Imagine being invited to a party and while you're there someone pulls out a camera to ask you your position on controversial issue x. You have no prep time and what you say can't be taken back because it's going to be available for the world to see within minutes.
As for Manning, he's not being held indefinitely and he's not in some secret holding cell. He's in Kansas. And his pre-trail hearing is in May. For those of you who think he's some sort of reincarnated Rosa Parks, here are his own words, "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" or how about, "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history...i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?"
He did it simply because he was bored, he could, and he hated his crappy job with the Army sitting in front of a computer all day in the middle of a freaking desert. He ended up getting caught because he bragged about it wanting hacker fame.
Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning's lucky that the prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty, which 'Aiding the Enemy' (one of the 23 charges against him) carries.


Well...he was a constitutional law professor. You'd think he'd know a little something about the presumption of innocence.

This has something to do with Habeas Corpus, not freedom of speech. Attacking wikileaks has something to do with freedom of speech. >> ^Matthu:

>> ^blankfist:
Remember when we used to hold freedom of speech as the greatest virtue of a free society?

this is the strawest man ever lol.
all this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.

In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:

I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.

All right, I can see why some would be upset I called His Earness "The Obamateur."

However, my comment is based on historical precedent. Nixon almost caused Charles Manson to get a mistrial by stating off the cuff that Manson was guilty.

Punka$$ Manning is either guilty and deserves death for treason, or he's a fking fool who--much like Michael Jackson--willingly placed himself in a situation where the perception is he's guilty.

Also, for those completely in the dark, Manning is subject to the UCMJ and has only some of the protections of civilians.

>> ^Yogi:
... Now I'm starting to really hate Obama and I'm pretty sure I'd vote for anyone else now...


The Donald?

>> ^NetRunner:

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.


Very good point. Yes, he can legally be Court-martialed, but that is a much lower standard of justice. One which should only be used when a proper trial is truly not possible. The same goes for everyone accused of terrorism.

The ethics of what he did is much harder to defend. Most leaks are done to expose specific crimes or wrongdoing, and they are a courageous act of patriotism when that is the case. But leaking a database of hundreds of thousands of documents in the hopes that some will show wrongdoing (or at least be embarrassing), is not really the same as what Daniel Ellsberg did.

Of course, his treatment while awaiting court-martial is unacceptable. Unless he genuinely is suicidal, even then they could handle it in a less cruel manner.

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:

But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

"Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed restricted material to the website WikiLeaks. He was charged in July that year with transferring classified data onto his personal computer, and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source. An additional 22 charges were preferred in March 2011, including "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty. He currently awaits a hearing to decide whether he will face a court martial.[2]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

So he's been locked up with no trial, only charges, for a full year (almost).

Not to mention that very shabby conditions he's being held in, which to me seem obviously punitive, which is illegal.
>> ^Morganth:

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:
But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

>> ^gwiz665:

This has something to do with Habeas Corpus, not freedom of speech. Attacking wikileaks has something to do with freedom of speech. >> ^Matthu:
>> ^blankfist:
Remember when we used to hold freedom of speech as the greatest virtue of a free society?

this is the strawest man ever lol.
all this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.



I was specifically speaking about the Espionage Act. And according to the wiki page, even the Supreme Court ruled it wasn't a violation of one's right to free speech, which is hard for me to reconcile in a supposed free society. Either you have free speech or you don't. The first amendment of the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"

What part about "Congress shall make no law" does Congress not understand? On its face, the Espionage Act should be unconstitutional.

>> ^NetRunner:

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.


It's about both. He should have a right to a trial, but beyond that this is a major encroachment on his first amendment right. Just read my comment above this one.

At best Manning should be sued for breach of contract with the U.S. Government, right? Treason is such an archaic thing that the Kings used to do; must we continue the barbarous behavior of monarchs? No one was killed or put into harm's way over these leaks. And all of the information leaked, we should have a right to because we all pay for it. And isn't government supposed to be transparent? Why such secrecy except to cover up the bad things they do?

Technically, he has not broken any law until a judge has said he has broken a law, right.

They should cut off his... pension

let justice be served.

>> ^blankfist:

I was specifically speaking about the Espionage Act. And according to the wiki page, even the Supreme Court ruled it wasn't a violation of one's right to free speech, which is hard for me to reconcile in a supposed free society. Either you have free speech or you don't. The first amendment of the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
What part about "Congress shall make no law" does Congress not understand? On its face, the Espionage Act should be unconstitutional.


Setting aside for a moment what the constitution says about the powers of the Supreme Court, does this ruling of the Supreme Court of Blankfist mean that any soldier has the right to march over to the enemy camp, and tell them the location and battle plan of the US Armed Forces, and be immune from prosecution?

How about fraud? Does this absolute ruling of yours mean that any attempt to control lying is also a violation of the 1st amendment?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.

It's about both. He should have a right to a trial, but beyond that this is a major encroachment on his first amendment right. Just read my comment above this one.
At best Manning should be sued for breach of contract with the U.S. Government, right? Treason is such an archaic thing that the Kings used to do; must we continue the barbarous behavior of monarchs? No one was killed or put into harm's way over these leaks. And all of the information leaked, we should have a right to because we all pay for it. And isn't government supposed to be transparent? Why such secrecy except to cover up the bad things they do?


What I meant was that people ambushing Obama about Manning should be hammering him about Manning's right to trial, about which there cannot and should not be any debate, especially from Obama.

In the larger sense, yes I think Manning did a service to his country, and I'm hoping that out of the associated fracas we see some movement to reform the rules around secrecy and National Security.

I don't have much hope of seeing that with politics being what they are these days, but it'd at least plant a seed in people's minds so that if/when sanity returns, people can rally around an effort to pare back secrecy laws.

Normally rationalizing people's rights away is a neocon tactic. Glad to see you adopting it, @NetRunner. Telling.

@blankfist resorting to name calling already? Usually you can at least go a couple rounds of replies before you give up on trying to make substantive arguments.

Lol. I love watching you argue an immoral stance. Smiley face.

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/04/23/manning

Greenwald said it better than I can and verbosely.

Whether or not Manning Broke the law or not shows that this president has neither the capacity nor the forethought to even state himself a Constitutional Lawyer.

While the presumption of innocence is not in the constitution it, has been, a long standing fundamental right of all people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

If the POTUS is passing his judgment so quickly then he is, as I have always suspected, a walking suit who cares not for the rights of the people.

If the President's pre-trial verdict had any real meaning, which it might given that Manning is under the UCMJ, the United States would be in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#The_fundamental_right

It matters not what crime was committed everyone has the presumption of innocence, even the most egregious criminals. To say otherwise is to betray one's true moral standing, that of a fascist and a hypocrite.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Obamateur's thoughtless comments could cause a future mistrial.


I don't normally agree with this guy. I can't hardly see how Manning could receive fair trail after the Commander and Chief, seemingly, has already given his verdict.

Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.

>> ^kceaton1:

Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.


Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

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.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^kceaton1:
Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.

Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

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.

>> ^kceaton1:

This could very well be true. I just want to hear i from his mouth. The fact that it's been an issue for months with nothing said or done is the ridiculous part. No stance can change that part.
Yes, the activists do not follow the logic well. I'll agree with that. But, I also don't like my government hiding as much information as it does. I understand militarily it may be needed, but almost everywhere else it's fear of repercussions in politics and people trying to manipulate others.


Agreed on all points. I'd like Obama to hold a press conference on Manning, and really take the bull by the horns. I also wish the press corps would hammer him about this constantly (though preferably in the fair "what's the hold up on giving him a trial" sense, not the straw man "why are you pronouncing his guilt prematurely" sense).

I think too much gets classified, but I think in the case of the state department e-mail, I think there's a lot of grey area there. In one sense, I don't think government leaders should be in the habit of having wildly divergent public & private conceptions of their policy. But given that such things are probably unavoidable, I'd like for diplomacy to be able to happen in both kinds of forums to maximize the ability for it to work.

For the most part, I think Wikileaks reminds us of what the value of a real press is -- it's to dig up the dirt the people in power are keeping secret to avoid accountability. I think without some sort of adversarial press, it's impossible for us to ever hold anyone in power accountable. It seems like in America, we don't really have a real investigative, journalistic press anymore.