A senior United Nations official is condemning a country’s refusal to allow the UN to speak to an alleged whistleblower being abused by the government. The same government recently fired a high-ranking official who denounced the treatment of the whistleblower and has openly defied international treaties requiring the prosecution of officials responsible for a torture program. Syria? Iran? China? Of course not. It is the United States of America and the administration of Barack Obama.
UN envoy, Juan Mendez, unleashed the criticism this week over the continuing refusal of the Obama Administration to give him access to private Bradley Manning, the American soldier who is accused of being the WikiLeaks source. Mendez stated “I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr Manning.”
The United States of course routinely demands other countries give access to UN investigators and Red Cross officials. The Bush Administration first blocked the Red Cross at Gitmo and then ignored its findings after it was given access. Now the Obama Administration is blocking the UN investigators.
Source: Guardian
Rafflaw:
From what I understand, Manning was only on Suicide Watch for about seven days, which was partially caused by Manning himself making a comment about committing suicide. He is currently on POI (Prevention of Injury) status which is siginificantly different. The Brig Commander may be overly cautious, I admit, but he is charged with bringing a live person to court someday. If you were the Commander would you act any differently, considering there was a suicide of a prisoner in the not too distant past? Consider the fact that if Manning were with other prisoners that his life might be in danger from other inmates who might pre-judge him based on allegations, and take matters into their own hands. POI considerations would also protect Manning from others, not just himself.
Well Dredd,
If it does not happen to you does it really happen? What is an illusion…What is real……..Ride My Seesaw….
Cruelty is becoming a habit the boys in power can’t seem to shake.
anon nurse,
What could be worse than getting caught with your breaches down?
Other than being caught red-handed breaking the law?
Oh. Wait.
Nevermind.
AY,
re: The DOD is afraid of the security breach(s) being exposed….
Yes, but there’s more…
Mr. Peatmoss,
Manning has a good lawyer, but he has yet been unable to get his status corrected to not include the suicide prevention that DOD claims is necessary. Of course, the prison psychologists and shrinks have stated on numerous occasions, in writing, that he is not a suicide risk, but the status remains. When the Brig can ignore their own experts, something is wrong. If the regulations need to be followed to the letter for the visits, why aren’t the regulations being followed as to the shrinks recommendations?
Mr. Mendez is absolutely correct.
We should be rightly laughed at any time the U.S. gets on its soap box and condemns other countries for doing exactly what we are doing.
Dear Rafflaw:
I wish the truth would come out, but that would show that Manning is being treated in accordance with regulations that befit his status, and many other accused military personnel are being held under the exact same conditions per the regulations. If you wish to change the regulations, be my guest, but please include Manning in a class action of sorts along with all other prisoners who, like Manning, are being held per the regulations.
If I were either the UN or Kucinich I would apply, per the regulations for a visit that would be in accordance with the regulations.
I don’t think the DOD is hiding anything. Manning has a good lawyer, and his many complaints have been widely publicized.
anon nurse, rafflaw,
The DOD is afraid of the security breach(s) being exposed…. I understand that a person with a rudimentary computer eduction can hack into it…. The info leaked by manning was not that secure to being with and was available and obtained by just putting his password in….
I think if you were blindfold and had someone read headlines and highlights of news stories from around the world and what the citizens of different countries were going through and not mention the names of the different countries or the people involved you’d be hard pressed IMHO tell what country you may be hearing about.
Doesn’t Manning have a right to meet with anyone who might become or replace his current lawyer?
Is what Manning did recognized in international law as a crime?
What is DOD afraid of? -rafflaw
Good question…
“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Combine with . . .
“[T]he Arab League asked the ‘United Nations to shoulder its responsibility … to impose a no-fly zone over the movement of Libyan military planes and to create safe zones in the places vulnerable to airstrikes.’
The Obama administration welcomed the decision, which White House spokesman Jay Carney said ‘strengthens the international pressure on Gadhafi and support for the Libyan people.’ He said the United States will prepare for all contingencies and coordinate with allies.”
Contrast with . . .
The blatant disregard the U.S. has shown under both the leaderships of Bush and Obama concerning U.N. Treaties governing both human rights and the treatment of prisoners in the case of Bradley Manning and the handling of the Gitmo debacle.
Is it any wonder that whatever moral high ground the U.S. used to occupy in the international community has been rendered down to a bad joke and the rightful comparison of Obama to Bush for both their Janus-like positions and their obvious capitulations to the commands of the wealthy over the their duties to not just the citizens of the U.S., but to all the citizens of the world?
Double-speaking law breaker is as double-speaking law breaker does, Barry.
I’m so proud to be an American under the leadership of the past two administrations.
That last bit was sarcasm, just in case you hard of understanding pols didn’t catch that.
Monday, Apr 11, 2011
Manning, Obama and U.S. moral leadership
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/11/manning/index.html
For that reason, as The Guardian reports this morning, a letter signed by “more than 250 of America’s most eminent legal scholars” that “includes leading figures from all the top US law schools, as well as prominent names from other academic fields” — featuring “Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be America’s foremost liberal authority on constitutional law”; who “taught constitutional law to Barack Obama and was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign”; and “joined the Obama administration last year as a legal adviser in the justice department, a post he held until three months ago” — not only denounces Manning’s detention but also the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner’s personal responsibility for it:
[Tribe] told the Guardian he signed the letter because Manning appeared to have been treated in a way that “is not only shameful but unconstitutional” as he awaits court martial in Quantico marine base in Virginia. . . . Tribe said the treatment was objectionable “in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offences, not to mention someone merely accused of such offences”.
The harsh restrictions have been denounced by a raft of human rights groups, including Amnesty International, and are being investigated by the United Nations’ rapporteur on torture. . . .
The intervention of Tribe and hundreds of other legal scholars is a huge embarrassment to Obama, who was a professor of constitutional law in Chicago. Obama made respect for the rule of law a cornerstone of his administration, promising when he first entered the White House in 2009 to end the excesses of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism. . . .
The protest letter, published in the New York Review of Books, was written by two distinguished law professors, Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard. They claim Manning’s reported treatment is a violation of the US constitution, specifically the eighth amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and the fifth amendment that prevents punishment without trial.
In a stinging rebuke to Obama, they say “he was once a professor of constitutional law, and entered the national stage as an eloquent moral leader. The question now, however, is whether his conduct as commander in chief meets fundamental standards of decency.”
end excerpt
Blouise,
Well said. The Gitmo trials are kangaroo courts designed to convict. This latest attempt for a UN official to visit Manning is one more example that Pvt. Manning is being punished for his “crimes” even before he has a trial. Swarthmore Mom, Great link. One of the recent additions to that list was Lawrence Tribe who was Obama’s con law professor at Harvard and until recently was an advisor to Obama.
Mr. Peatmoss,
Congressman Kucinich was also denied a visit. If independent parties are unable to visit him without restraint, the truth will never come out. Kucinich’s committee has oversight on this matter and he was not allowed to confidential visit. What is DOD afraid of?
Back in the day … in the period leading up to the Revolutionary War, one of the factors that played into the colonists’ dissatisfaction with the King was the expansion of what was called the “Vice-Admiralty courts”. There trials were held without juries and the King’s Ministers managed to expand these courts jurisdiction through acts of Parliament during the Sugar and Stamp Act periods that allowed charges, heretofore tried in Jury Trials (Common-Law ) to be moved to the Vice-Admiralty courts.
Unlike Common-Law courts, defendants in Vice-Admiralty courts were assumed guilty until proven innocent. Failure to appear as commanded resulted in an automatic guilty verdict. The Currency Act of 1764 established a “super” Vice-Admiralty court in Halifax, Nova Scotia. This court had jurisdiction from the Floridas to Newfoundland and the judge was appointed and sent directly from England. It was to be used on occasions when officials felt that the local courts might rule against them. This court could be used not only to prosecute, but to persecute those thought to be enemies of Great Britain. Imagine that you lived in one of the Carolinas or Virginia and found yourself commanded to appear at this “super” court. You had to get yourself there at your own expense and if your didn’t make it, well the automatic guilty verdict was declared.
The colonists saw this move, the denial of their right to jury trials by their peers, as one more way in which England was denying them their rights as subjects of the King and why they needed to dump the King.
I mention this only because … well, I’m certain you all get the point
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/bradley-manning-legal-scholars-letter Top legal scholars decry the treatment of Bradley Manning.
Where in the U. S. Constitution is the United Nations authorized to criticize the United States of America?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…
Isn’t it true that the UN has requested a private conversation with Manning? And isn’t it also true that private conversations are limited, per rules, to counsel and command? Has the UN not requested a meeting other than a private conference? Please advise.