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
Bradley Manning needs consular visit, mother tells William Hague
Susan Manning calls on British foreign secretary to check her son’s physical and mental health in maximum security custody
Esther Addley
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/13/bradley-manning-mother-william-hague
Excerpt:
The mother of Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of leaking data to WikiLeaks, has written to William Hague asking for British consular officials to visit him in military prison to check on his physical and mental health, which she said was deteriorating.
Manning, 23, has been in custody since last May in conditions that have provoked widespread criticism of the US military and government. He is held alone in a maximum security cell for 23 hours a day and stripped naked each night apart from a smock.
Manning does not have a British passport or consider himself British, his lawyer has said, but because his mother, Susan, is Welsh, the soldier is “British by descent”, the Foreign Office confirmed this month.
In her letter, Susan Manning wrote that she visited her son in Quantico marine base in Virginia in February, travelling with her sister, Bradley’s aunt and his uncle, “but they were not allowed to see Bradley.
“I was very distressed by seeing Bradley. Being in prison, and being held in the conditions which he is, is having a damaging effect on him physically and mentally. I am worried that his condition is getting worse. I would like someone to visit him who can check on his conditions. If Bradley’s being a British national means that someone from the British embassy can visit him, then I would like to ask if you can make that happen. I do not believe that Bradley is in a position to be able to request this himself, so I am asking as his mother on his behalf.”
Susan Manning, who divorced Bradley’s American father, Brian, when her son was a teenager, also asked Hague for consular support on her own behalf. “If I try [to] visit Bradley again, can someone from the British embassy help me and other members of Bradley’s family to deal with the US marine authorities and help with any other arrangements we have to make?”
BIL,
I can’t take credit for it, only for enjoying it and passing it along! Now here’s another kid we better get to torturing: “Incident In New Baghdad” Premiering at Tribeca Film Festival & Several Speaking Engagements
New York, NY — Ethan McCord is a former member of U.S. Army 2-16, Bravo Company, the ground troops involved in the “Collateral Murder” video released by Wikileaks one year ago. Since then, he has become a whistleblower himself by declaring that the killing of civilians was “standard operating procedure” in Iraq, and is authorized by the highest levels of the U.S. military in all theatres of war. Ethan has been traveling with the “We Are Not Your Soldiers” (www.wearenotyoursoldiers.org) tour visiting high school classrooms educating students about the horrors of war and the lies presented by military recruiters.”
from WarisaCrime.org
Jill,
Fluffington Post . . . *snicker*
I like it.
Almost as much as I like Kucinich.
Get ’em, Dennis!
rafflaw,
It is. I hope he will keep at this. I hope everyone will keep at it because this torture is heinous.
Jill,
That was a great letter from Kucinich.
“ONER: I’m not aware. I don’t know. I’d have to look into that. But in terms of the UN special rapporteur, we’ve had conversations with him. We have ongoing conversations with him. But in terms of access to Manning, that’s something for the Department of Defense.
MOHAMMED: If you welcome scrutiny, where’s the harm?
TONER: I said we’re having conversations with him. We’re trying to work with him to meet his needs. But I don’t understand the question.
MOHAMMED: Well, you said you welcome scrutiny from outsiders of the United States human rights record –
TONER: Right. We do.
MOHAMMED: — that you feel that it speaks to the strength of the U.S. system. So why does it take very lengthy conversations to agree to let a UN special rapporteur have access to an inmate?
TONER: Well, again, for the specific visitation requests, that’s something that Department of Defense would best answer. But look, we’ve been very clear that there’s a legal process underway. We’ve been forthright, I think, in talking about Private – PFC Manning’s situation. We are in conversations, ongoing conversations with the special rapporteur. We have nothing to hide. But in terms of an actual visit to Manning, that’s something that DOD would handle.
LEE: Well, but you have conveyed messages from DOD back to the UN on this?
TONER: Well, no. We’re just – look, we’re aware of his requests. We’re working with him.
LEE: Can – you said you’ve been forthright in your discussions of his treatment. It seems to me that the only person who was forthright in discussions of his treatment resigned several days after making those comments. What – can you explain what you mean by you’ve been forthright in terms of his treatment?
TONER: He is being held in legal detention. There’s a legal process underway, so I’m not going to discuss in any more detail than what I – beyond what I’ve just said because there’s a legal process underway.
LEE: So that’s what you mean by forthright?
TONER: I can’t discuss – I can’t discuss his treatment.
LEE: Being forthright is saying nothing because there’s a legal process underway; is that correct?
TONER: That’s not correct at all. And we’ve – we continue to talk to the special rapporteur about his case.
LEE: Well, okay. So if you’ve been – what do you talk to him about?
TONER: I’m not going to talk about —
LEE: He says, “I’d like to visit him and I need to do it privately,” and you say, “No,” and that’s —
TONER: I’m not going to talk about the substance of those conversations. I’d just say we feel we’ve been —
LEE: Well, then I don’t understand how you can say that you’re being forthright about it if you refuse to talk about it. And if you don’t talk about it, at least – forget about what the actual conditions of his treatment are, but if you’re not prepared to talk about your conversations with the special rapporteur, that’s being even less than not being forthright because you’re not telling us what you told him.” (find this exchange with a govt. official at Glenn Greenwald on twitter)
“Since my initial request to visit Private First Class (Pfc.) Bradley Manning on February 4, 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) has consistently sought to frustrate any attempts to communicate with Pfc. Manning regarding his well-being.
I or my staff have been shuffled between the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Office of Secretary Gates. I was initially told that I would need Pfc. Manning’s approval in order to meet with him. When Pfc. Manning indicated his desire to meet with me, I was belatedly informed that the meeting could only take place if it was recorded because of a Monitoring Order imposed by the military’s Special Courts-Martial Convening Authority on September 16, 2010, which was convened for the case. Confidentiality is required, however, to achieve the candor that is necessary to perform the oversight functions with which I am tasked as a Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I was also told that I could be subpoenaed to testify about the contents of my conversation with Pfc. Manning.
This is a clear subversion of the constitutionally protected oversight process and it severely undermines the rights of any Member of Congress seeking to gather information on the conditions of a detainee in U.S. custody.
Though he has been held in custody since July 29, 2010, Pfc. Manning has not been convicted of any crime. His lawyer reports that he continues to be held in isolation 23 hours a day. He was also forced to strip naked at night and to stand at attention during roll call in front of other prisoners. The conditions of his treatment may violate his right to be protected from ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ and punishment without trial as enshrined in the 8th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution.
We now hear that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan E. Mendez, was denied a private meeting with Pfc. Manning in order to determine whether the conditions of Manning’s confinement amount to torture. The very existence of a U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture investigation speaks volumes about the conditions of his treatment.
The continued delays I have experienced amount to a subversion of Pfc. Manning’s legal rights as well as my own rights and obligations as a Member of Congress to conduct oversight. The whole world is now watching.
What is going on with Secretary Gates and the Department of Defense with respect to Pfc. Manning’s treatment is more consistent with Kafka than the U.S. Constitution. I will not cease in my efforts to determine whether or not the conditions under which he has been held constitute torture.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (find this letter at fluffington post)
rafflaw,
The DOD needs to reassess … the foxholes they’re digging are too deep.
Also … they need to assign better disinformation specialists … (chuckle)
Mr. Peatmoss,
with all due respect, my money is on Tribe due to his knowledge and the facts are on his side. The reports that you denigrate come from his attorney. You stated earlier that his attorney was good, but now you are suggesting that the reports, many from that same attorney, are false or bogus.
Blouise,
Great link. The DOD does not want any official visits because the truth will come out. I will apply the birther standard here. If there is nothing to hide, why won’t they allow an official visit with a Congressman who is on a committee that has oversight in this matter or the UN envoy?
Not sure what is more absurd:
1) U.S. denying U.N. access to Manning; or
2) The deafening silence in response to the U.N. being denied access to Manning.
Wilbur J. Peatmoss
Your suggestion: “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.” is easy enough to check.
Here is a quote from Kucinich on March 3rd with a link to the actual interview:
“That’s right. I put in a request to the Secretary of Defense who referred me to the Secretary of the Army who referred me to the Secretary of Navy who referred me to the Secretary of Defense and still not an answer on whether or not I can visit. (http://dissentradio.com/radio/11_03_11_kpfk_kucinich.mp3)
And here is a posting from Manning’s atty. which details the reasons given for denying visits by DOD:
“07 april 2011
Brig Fails to Follow Its Own Rules
Over the past few weeks, the defense has been working to facilitate an official visit for Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Mr. Juan Mendez (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture), and a representative from Amnesty International. Despite multiple inquires from the defense and the interested parties, the Quantico Brig and the Government have denied the requests for an “official visit.”
The Quantico Brig Order P1640.1C, paragraph 3.17 allows two types of visitors for a detainee, “authorized” and “official.” The difference between them is described here in the Brig rule. The defense maintains that the critical distinction between the two is that official visits are privileged and not subject to Brig monitoring.
Government’s position is that the above individuals are not entitled to an official visit because none of these individuals are conducting “official government business.” Because the Government refuses to allow these visits to take place as an official visit, it indicates that it will generously interpret the provisions with respect to “authorized visits.” In particular, it will permit an authorized visit with PFC Manning despite the fact that none of these individuals had “established a proper relationship with the prisoner prior to confinement” as required under the Brig rule. Such an authorized visit, of course, will be subject to Brig monitoring and can be used as evidence against PFC Manning in a court-martial proceeding.
posted by army court-martial defense specialist at 11:24 am”
(http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/04/brig-fails-to-follow-its-own-rules.html)
Sounds to me as if regulations are being followed by everybody except the DOD.
@ Dredd
That was an amazing link you posted
“Extraordinary Conflict of Interest: Bush Cousin Presides Over Federal Court Case Against Former Bush Administration Officials”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42469680
Rafflaw:
Oh yeah, I forgot about Tribe and 250 legal scholars. Their letter was based on “reports”. I’d be happy to debate them all with the arguments I have submitted above. If you can prove me wrong on substance or reasoning, please do.
seamus, they do not even need the First Amendment. Anyone abroad can criticize any country. Even the ones with repressive regimes. Same way we can criticize anyone from China to some island nation no one ever heard of.
Sometimes we not only criticize but invade them as well.
Rafflaw:
I have been accused of many things in my day, but “Fear Mongering? Never. Exactly how do I monger fear? Further, my experience is that when an opponent resorts to ad hominem, it is a concession that they lost the argument.
As for a “no brainer” on changing Manning’s status, your speculation on orders from above is just that. Any evidence you care to offer? Due process will get you a hearing and Mannings complaints about his conditions have been heard and denied. Due process does not mean you get an automatic ruling in your favor.
Thanks for the link Jill. The situation is serious and action needs to take place soon..
Q: “Where in the U. S. Constitution is the United Nations authorized to criticize the United States of America?”
A: The 1st Amendment
I keep following the complete breakdown of the rule of law in our nation. It should be noted that Omar Kadhr, a child soldier is being kept at Gitmo in conditions that also amount to torture. Further, only a few days ago the US govt. admitted to the existence of secret prisons in Afghanistan. People that have been released from these prisons claim they were tortured in them. “A new investigation by journalist Anand Gopal reveals harrowing details about US secret prisons in Afghanistan, under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Gopal interviewed Afghans who were detained and abused at several disclosed and undisclosed sites at US and Afghan military bases across the country. He also reveals the existence of another secret prison on Bagram Air Base that even the Red Cross does not have access to. It is dubbed the Black Jail and is reportedly run by US Special Forces”
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/2/americas_secret_afghan_prisons_investigation_unearths
We must do something. There is no functioning govt. in the US. The govt. is committing war crimes, crimes against the environment, financial crimes against everyone in the middle, working and poor classes and we the people are too often turning away, unwilling to criticize, let alone take direct peaceful action to stop all this harm. This is our nation at stake. This is the lives of others. It doesn’t matter that a Democrat is the current tyrant, it matters that we have a tyrant at all. It mattered under Bush and it matters under Obama. It matters in the House and the Senate. Other people’s lives have to matter to us.
We need massive peaceful resistance right now, not in 2012, right now. I cannot warn of the danger everyone is facing enough. This govt. isn’t functioning in a lawful manner. As citizens we should not allow the govt. to engage in these unlawful actions. Please stand up, no matter if you are a partisan, because there is something much greater than loyalty to a party. That is loyalty to the best of what one’s nation is and most importantly, it is loyalty to the lives of others–that they be not destroyed because of our inaction and unwillingness to take a stand.
Mr. Peatmoss,
He is not listening to his experts and yes, I would take him off the prevention of injury status. It is a no brainer, unless you are getting orders from above. There is no way the Brig commander would be deciding these issues, with this prisoner, without orders from the Pentagon. Your fear mongering is obvious and unnecessary. The commander may be following his orders, but they are not following the law. This Private has not been tried and convicted. I will agree with Prof. Lawrence Tribe and the other law professors on the list that signed the letter decrying the unconstitutional treatment he is being forced to suffer through.
Access to justice include access to others.
Access to justice is systematically denied in the courts too:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42469680