You don't even have to be charged with a crime in order to be pardoned for it. So yeah, don't put it past Obama to do it. If it potentially hurts the country, Obama might think it is a good idea.
wonder what other sort of "set the house on fire as you get evicted" stuff Obama has planned for the next two days
I would like, but will probably not get, more information as to why exactly he made this pardon. Clearly, Ms Mannings status has some relevance to the decision. For factoring in the issues it presented, I have no issue with that. If it was more as a political gesture to the LBGTcommunity, I do have a problem with that, as I would if were done for any similar political reason. Until something comes out indicating that such was the case, though, I'm not that upset or worried about it. Probably lots of sound and fury discussing it, but the actual impact of this pardoning will be essentially nonexistent. Pardoning Snowden, on the other hand, would be primarily political, not nearly as justified, and would set a very very bad precendent which could lead to more such future offenses. Which is why the Obama administration never really considered doing it.
I fully expect the entire white house staff to crap on the floors and rub it on the walls on the way out.
instead of thinking and focusing on Manning's sex, you may find it quite reasonable when you read her court case
Overdue. Would also like to see Snowden forgiven somehow, without him having to go through what Manning went through. Won't happen, but would be nice.
No, you really don't. Learn a bit before running your mouth and proving your ignorance. As per SCOTUS ruling pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment"
What about when America betrays the trust of its people by killing inncocent civilians oversees with our tax dollars, and then doing everything in its power to hide evidence of said killing?
Were these "innocent" civilians in a war zone? Either way, it's no excuse for being a traitor, which is what Manning is and pardoning it only encourages more people to be traitors.....but then again Obama is looking for some kind of legacy and I guess that's one.
So then your ok with the US drone bombing hundreds of innocent civilians, including children, as long as it's in a war zone that may have a 50/50 chance of harboring a target?
War is hell. Kind of an incentive to do anything possible to avoid war with America (or anyone) isn't it? If people support those who would use their children as human shields then they aren't really "innocent" then are they?
So you're ok with letting terrorists go and continue to kill innocents because they know that embedding themselves in with civilians protects them indefinitely? (Hey, these strawmen arguments are fun!)
This is the kind of black and white political misunderstanding that has led to our current position in the Middle East.
I disagree, we haven't had anyone willing to do what must be done in the middle east in charge of things since those who are elected now were children.
