Bradley Manning case sparks UN criticism of US government

[CHIMO]

Source: guardian.co.uk

A senior United Nations representative on torture, Juan Mendez, issued a rare reprimand to the US government on Monday for failing to allow him to meet in private Bradley Manning, the American soldier held in a military prison accused of being the WikiLeaks source. It is the kind of censure that the UN normally reserves for authoritarian regimes around the world.

Mendez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said: "I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr Manning."

Manning's supporters claim that the US is being vindictive in its treatment of Manning, who is held at the Marine base at Quantico, Virginia, in conditions they describe as inhumane.

Mendez, who has been investigating complaints about his treatment since before Christmas, said the US department of defence would not allow him to make an "official" visit, only a "private" one. An "official" visit would mean he meets Manning without a guard present. A "private" visit means with a guard and anything the prisoner says could be used in the planned court-martial.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/bradley-manning-juan-mendez-torture

[Newsjock]

1. Mr. Obama, you can stop this

The fact that you do not speaks volumes.

[ezgoingrl]

2. It seems that the US can just

throw out civil rights whenever it is convenient at the same time condemning other countries for their inhumane actions. Hypocrisy makes me want to puke.:puke:

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Hey. Cut him some slack! He ASKED the Pentagon...

.... if Manning was being abused and the Pentagon said "no".

Not Obama's fault if they choose to lie to him.

[DeSwiss]

5. Apparently he can't. :-/ n/t

[msanthrope]

7. Why should Manning get a privilege no other prisoner in America does?

It would be great if prisoners could decide which convos are private, but they can't.

[Bragi]

11. Misdirection hazard warning! /nt

[msanthrope]

13. Right--because law and facts shouldn't enter into this.

I suppose there will be claims that the US is violating 'international law' next, and if one should ask 'which one?' that would be misdirection???

[EFerrari]

17. LOL

[_ed_]

12. Hyperbole about torture

Funny how the UN is passe now that 2008 has passed...

[mountainlion55]

18. He is a better man than Obama

He is that rare soul that is good! That said I think he will be crucified.

[msanthrope]

4. He can visit. But Manning doesn't get to claim privilege. If this is somehow inconsistent

with the law that every other US citizen has to live under, please cite it?

[DeSwiss]

6. The M.I.C. decides what's best for America.

- That says it all.

K&R

[msanthrope]

8. No, the Constitution does. Specifically, the 5th amendment. n/t

[DeSwiss]

16. The Constitution is "just" words on paper.....

...until it is enforced. Until and unless it is respected.

- And I've seen precious little of either in quite a long while.......

[booksenkatz]

9. Off to Greatest, K&R. nt

[Newsjock]

10. Well, looks like that didn't last long

Speaking out against torture is clearly un-American.

[joshcryer]

19. Fixed.

[EFerrari]

15. Once more, with feeling.

:kick:

[Jefferson23]

14. censure that the UN normally reserves for authoritarian regimes around the world".....

How cool for us.

[joshcryer]

20. I fully expect Manning to get a pardon at the end of Obama's second term.

[mountainlion55]

21. No really?

At this rate with Obama we could all need pardons by the end of a second term.

[joshcryer]

23. 2111 days from now.

72 million registered Democrats.

That means 34,107 people will have to be arrested daily until now and the 2017 inauguration.

Hyperbole much? :hi:

[struggle4progress]

22. Manning is accused of unauthorized release of something like 3/4 of a million pages of text

from a military computer

To download that volume of material, Manning (who enlisted in October 2007 and was arrested in May 2010) would have had to download something like a page every forty seconds, eight hours a day, seven days a week, for the entire period between his enlistment and arrest -- something like two and a half years

I do not know whether the charges are true, or whether he actually released so many pages -- but if he did, the actual period during which he downloaded material was probably only a fraction of the period between his enlistment and arrest -- and so the rate at which he copied material to release would have been substantially higher than a page every forty seconds

These allegations must have triggered a comprehensive intelligence and counter-intelligence investigation, with attention to the possibility of a multi-person conspiracy and also to the possibility that Manning might have used automated methods to select and copy materials he released

Under such circumstances, Manning certainly will not be allowed private conversations with just anyone, and the regulations governing his conversations will naturally be generic, to avoid tipping off any potential co-conspirators that they themselves are also under suspicion

Mendez has a high enough profile, to protect both himself and Manning from reprisal for anything Manning might say when they meet, even if a guard witnesses the meeting

[joshcryer]

24. It's only a couple of gigs.

It took him all of a few hours to get the data.

[struggle4progress]

25. To grab a directory at random, containing that volume of data, and to download it

would take only a matter of minutes, I think

But that scenario would undermine claims Manning is a whistle-blower motivated by conscience: to support the idea, that Manning had done something principled here, would require him to have some definite knowledge about exactly what he was releasing and why he was releasing it; that is, it presupposes some familiarity with the material

The less time it took Manning to select and copy the material, the less credibility there is to the claim that he was simply motivated to expose any specific wrongs known to him

[boppers]

26. His stated motivations were not individual wrongs, but patterns of them.

He handed it off to others to find dirt.

[Bragi]

28. I challenge your conclusion

You write: But that scenario would undermine claims Manning is a whistle-blower motivated by conscience: to support the idea, that Manning had done something principled here, would require him to have some definite knowledge about exactly what he was releasing and why he was releasing it; that is, it presupposes some familiarity with the material

This is only true to a degree.

Manning might have understood that no one person could go through and analyse each document to put together all the pieces, so instead of trying the impossible, he instead decided to leak the documents to an organization that specializes in leaks, one with an impeccable record of responsible disclosure, that works with some of the world's top media, to make sure that leaked material was disclosed in as coherent, responsible and forceful a manner possible.

If that's what he did, then in my view, that constitutes highly responsible whistleblowing.

[joshcryer]

29. Yeah, by hours, I mean, the entire time sneaking in, getting access, whatever.

It shouldn't have taken him, if the data was stored centrally, more than a few minutes. But he may have had to dig around to find the files, they might not be easily aggregated.

[joshcryer]

30. But, I would contest it would undermine his case. He targeted diplomatic cables.

It's likely he had far far more interesting data access, troop movements, tactics, etc, but he opted to go after the cables. I think that shows that his motivations were at least, albeit naive, forgivable. It's not like he was doing espionage for another country.

[struggle4progress]

31. ... The charges allege that as a military intelligence analyst, Manning aided the enemy by

unlawfully downloading classified information from government computers, improperly storing it, and transmitting it for public release and use by the enemy. Manning ... allegedly downloaded thousands of classified military and State Department documents ... At the request of Manning's defense attorneys, the trial proceedings have been delayed since July 12, 2010, pending the results of a defense-requested inquiry into Manning's mental capacity ...
Manning faces more charges for classified leaks
Mar 4, 2011
http://www.army.mil/-news/2011/03/04/52773-manning-faces-more-charges-for-classified-leaks/

[msanthrope]

34. I would challenge your assertion, josh, that his motivations were naive--

The Prosecution never has to prove motive. Ever. But Mr. Manning has given them a motive....

He didn't just target cables. He used a data miner to target specific documents, including the global server addresses of the US Command in Iraq. Using a data miner for specific searches is premeditation.

Where he got the data miner could point to conspiracy.

But here's where the 'motivations' come in--

Manning had problems at Fort Drum--throwing chairs and yelling at superiors. He was sent to Iraq anyway. One of his major leaks apparently happened the day after he struck a superior officer--which action eventually got him demoted to 'private.'

And he leaked the "War Logs" before he ever touched "Collateral Murder."

Then, he bragged to Lamo that his tracks were covered by the security measures of the US Army.

For all of Bradley Manning's claimed 'conscience' the prosecution is going to have a relatively easy time simply showing that his leaks corresponded to his fuckups--and that since his leaking of the 'War Logs' predated the leaking of 'Collateral Murder,' his claims of 'conscience' are utter bullshit.

I think you should read the NEW charge sheet, josh--the cables are a sideshow.

[Bragi]

37. "I think you should read the NEW charge sheet, josh--the cables are a sideshow."

That's pathetic, but predictable. DU's lonely voice in support of torture wants us to ignore the leaks that exposed war crimes, and instead focus on the charges released by Manning's torturers. Yeah, right.

[msanthrope]

41. Let us know when someone's charged with 'war crimes.'

Kindly state who, specifically, should be charged with war crimes, and under what statute.

[Bragi]

42. I'll jump right on that assignment right now!

Oh wait, a search of the archives shows you've already had that debate over and over and over.

And no matter how many different people explain it to you however many different ways, nothing is ever war crime-y enough for you. Odd that.

[boppers]

27. He burned it onto a disc labelled "Lady Gaga".

Machines with that kind of clearance aren't supposed to have removable media access. This is why. You can fill a disc in under 20 minutes with quite a few documents, especially if you've compressed them first.

[EFerrari]

32. The issue, obviously, is not the "profile" of the UN Special Rapporteur.

It's obviously that Manning shouldn't be set up to incriminate himself or be in any way impeded from an open interview with the UN official by the presence of a guard.

Obviously.

[struggle4progress]

38. If Mendez, consistent with his portfolio, seeks to inquire into the conditions

of Manning's detention and the details of Manning's treatment, that inquiry has no obvious immediate relationship to the charges against Manning or to Manning's alleged activities prior to detention. If Mendez seeks a private interview with Manning, his motive and concern in seeking such privacy cannot be immediately related to questions of Manning's guilt or innocence, or to any non-self-incrimination right Manning might possess under international law: rather, private interviews in such cases are sought, to ensure that detainees can speak freely, without fear of reprisal from their captors. Mendez, by both personal experience and professional history, has some background to understand the issues generally involved in torture claims

... Mr. Méndez said it was standard practice for the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to have private, confidential and unsupervised interviews with detainees or anyone alleging torture or ill-treatment to ensure the credibility of those interviews ...
UN rights expert voices frustration at United States over access to detained soldier
11 April 2011
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38080&Cr=torture&Cr1=

Given the allegations against Manning, involving a very large release of restricted and/or classified documents and the possibility of a multi-person collusion to further the document release, it seems quite natural that Manning's visitation rights are quite restricted: the intelligence and counter-intelligence investigators, as well as the prosecution, will be concerned by the possibility that Manning may pass message signals covertly to co-conspirators; the investigators and prosecution will similarly be concerned that ad-hoc approvals or disapprovals of potential visitors may indicate who is or is not under suspicion of colluding with Manning. So if one wants international human rights observers to be able to meet with such prisoners in the US, the issue can only be resolved by forcing a regulatory change and not on a case-by-case basis

[EFerrari]

39. That is exactly the argument that was offered

to deprive the illegally detained civilians at Gitmo of their due process rights.

It was specious then and now.

[struggle4progress]

40. Gotta guess you either didn't read what I wrote or didn't understand it

[msanthrope]

35. You are correct--

As of March 2, Manning is also charged with using a data miner, and with obtaining and leaking the global server addresses of the US Command in Iraq. He bragged to his chat mate that what he had done had been 'wiped,' but apparently, he left a forensic trail.

Where he obtained the data miner is still an open question.

A six-person military panel was convened to explore why Manning was ever allowed to go to Iraq, after throwing chairs and yelling at superior officers at Fort Drum.

And there is a fairly substantiated rumor that there's a grand jury sitting in the 3rd.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tuckessee]

33. I wonder if the UN may eventually order the US to bomb itself? n/t