Reply #29: He is going to be tried under the UCMJ

[jberryhill]

But anyone is entitled to their own opinion of matters and to express them.

I believe two things with relative certainty:

1. He is going to get a fair trial, and

2. Whatever the prosecution's case is, and whatever the defense's case is, neither of those has been or is likely to be published in great detail in advance of the trial.

The presumption of innocence is a rule of procedure. There are all sorts of things which are deemed "presumptions" for the purpose of establishing who has the burden to do what, and how great a burden they must overcome, in order to establish proof of any proposition. But it is not some sort of all encompassing rule of ordering one's thoughts and expressions if one has no role in the proceeding.

The notion that a government official of any stripe may express an opinion is subject to certain rules, but it goes without saying that the government has expressed its belief of probable cause or, quite simply, nobody would ever be arrested and charged with anything.

Try not to confuse law with either moral precepts or justice. The law provides a set of procedures for the approximation of outcomes over a large number of instances which, over time, have been deemed close enough for the purpose of regulating behavior within what passes for consensus of "what oughtta happen".

Whether Manning's pre-trial confinement has been punitive, or whether there have been prejudicial pre-trial statements, will be grist for the mill of motions at trial and appeals. The defense has also been using its time to build its case and to determine an appropriate defense. But the bottom line here is that the UCMJ governs persons who have voluntarily given up a number of rights ordinarily available to the general population. Live in the armed services, even out of confinement, can itself be difficult - even to the extent of severe physical deprivation and mortal danger. The power to ensure that you are never subject to any proceeding under the military justice system is entirely within your own two hands in deciding whether to join the military or not.

But the peanut gallery is perfectly entitled to hold and express their various opinions - whether it be condemnation, proclamations of innocence, or affirmative justifications.

But, really, I wasn't asking specifically out of anything related to Manning. I see the presumption of innocence thrown around a lot, as if it were "words to live by" in some general sense. The fact of the matter is that we certainly have required roles within the justice system itself in which the persons involved are most assuredly not required to presume anyone is innocent (e.g. prosecutors).