Bradley Manning | News | United Nations | Wikileaks

BigGayDeal.com

UN Torture Investigator Says U.S. Military Treatment of Wikileaks Soldier Bradley Manning was 'Cruel and Inhumane'

A UN investigation into the treatment of Wikileaks soldier Bradley Manning in Camp Arifjan in Kuwait and in Quantico in Virginia, where he was held in solitary confinement and made to strip naked at night, has been described as  not 'definitive' because the UN rapporteur "has consistently been denied permission by the US military to interview the prisoner under acceptable circumstances."

As you may recall, in March 2011, Obama said of Manning's situation:

"I have asked the Pentagon whether or not the the procedures that have been taken in terms of his condition are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are."

The Guardian reports: Manning

Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.

"The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes.

The findings of cruel and inhuman treatment are published as an addendum to the special rapporteur's report to the UN general assembly on the promotion and protection of human rights. They are likely to reignite criticism of the US government's harsh treatment of Manning ahead of his court martial later this year.

Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules [guardian]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Isn't he locked up for life yet? Cry me a river, Bradley Manning. Three hots and a cot are more than you deserve for betraying your country.

    Posted by: LincolnLounger | Mar 12, 2012 11:33:21 AM


  2. Whistleblowing is not treason. Being a log cabin republican shilling for the Neocon-Catholic enterprise to destroy America is...but hey, thanks for playing. Someone throw a penny at lincoln lounger. He likes pretty shiny money.

    Posted by: Mic | Mar 12, 2012 12:06:28 PM


  3. So much for Obama saying we don't torture.

    Posted by: Joey | Mar 12, 2012 12:40:55 PM


  4. Gotta love folks like lincolnloungelizard, who gladly give up all our rights, values and principles at the drop of a hat.

    Folks like lincolnloungelizard make up the base of the Rethuglicans who are literally destroying our nation and its ideals.

    Posted by: Continuum | Mar 12, 2012 1:03:05 PM


  5. Of course, they are discouraging others from doing the same.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 12, 2012 1:39:27 PM


  6. betraying what now? Manning is no treasonous criminal, and anyone who's actually read up on this issue knows that.

    right-wing suck ups, however? yeah. right. keep it up you plebes.

    Posted by: ClosetedConservative | Mar 12, 2012 1:44:24 PM


  7. Poor Bradley Manning! If only he did this when Bush was president, then we would all be outraged by this cruel and inhuman treatment in jail. But since it's Obama's military torturing an anti-war hero, then it's not a big deal.

    Posted by: AG | Mar 12, 2012 2:09:53 PM


  8. Yes, "AG", because Bush never did anything to personally benefit him$elf or the State of Texas through his presidency... you're a joke.

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Mar 12, 2012 2:42:34 PM


  9. Whether he's guilty of treason (or some other crime) or not, the way in which he was (and is still being) treated is wrong. If he's guilty of a crime, then charge him and try him. If he's not, then let him go. It's really quite simple, unless you're a right-wing freak who smells blood.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Mar 12, 2012 3:23:32 PM


  10. Glad to see others also still shocked by this, as those of us outside the USA are

    Posted by: Stufromoz | Mar 12, 2012 4:34:45 PM


  11. The UN wasted money doing this. It cannot have a palpable effect on the US justice system, much less the military justice system.

    We all knew this, but sympathy for Wikileaks doesn't run too deep among governments and diplomats.

    Posted by: Paul R | Mar 12, 2012 5:06:43 PM


  12. Manning gets treated like a traitor, the men responsible for the Valerie Plame scandal walk away scot-free. yay.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Mar 12, 2012 5:13:40 PM


  13. Are there any other persons in federal or military custody AND before they are adjudicated guilty or not guilty, who are stripped naked and kept in a cell 23 hours a day? If not then they shouldn't do this,

    Posted by: grego | Mar 12, 2012 5:25:54 PM


  14. Plame was not working in the field or undercover, and could not be outed at all. According to Novak, who wrote the piece:

    "For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew — independent of me — the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act...."

    Fitzgerald knew that no one violated the act. He wante dto see who he could get into a perjury trap - and he got Libby, who was convicted on issues not related to the origianl charge itself. He was set up by the prosecutor, who was trying to trick Cheney into lying to him. The investigation was a sham, because he already knew no one had broken that law.

    Posted by: ted | Mar 12, 2012 7:15:54 PM


  15. @Paul R I wouldn't say it was a waste. I don't mean to offend, but the world is fed up with US foreign policy at this point. Wikileaks, Manning, the recent soldier that killed those kids, the drone attacks in Pakistan and the illegality of the Iraq invasion are just the tip of the talking points. The rest of the world has a problem with the DOJ, CIA and DOD policies. Mark my words, the UN is going to have to clean all this up. And I wouldn't be surprised if the UN prevents the US from entering Iran. This is just one piece of the puzzle that is the case against the US. US laws are being exported to the globe, and the rest of us have serious issues with US law.

    Posted by: Brim | Mar 13, 2012 2:02:54 AM


  16. The UN has zero influence on US law or activity. The US will do whatever it wants. I'm not suggesting that's a great setup. But it's how things are.

    Posted by: Paul R | Mar 13, 2012 3:51:09 AM


  17. @Paul R Well, when people from other countries are extradited to the US and people in those countries oppose their own governments, via occupy and the Arab spring, or rallies in Poland against internet laws, what do you think will happen? Bottom line, the US cannot do whatever it wants. There is increasing pressure in allied - ALIED - countries to abandon all US-UK foreign policies. For example, Canada, where I live, is an allied country. There have been a number of Canadian citizens extradited to the US and also a number of cases of extraordinary rendition. We are pissed up here at our own complicit government and the reaction is that one political party is no longer a party while another socialist party is in official opposition, rising out of relatively nowhere.

    Sometimes I think Americans don't bother to follow political trends. The US is not the future. We hate the US government, especially those under 50. I think world action against the US is a real possibility.

    Posted by: Brim | Mar 13, 2012 9:00:52 AM


  18. I never said that I was defending US actions. But the US is home to the UN, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Organization of American States...I could go on. In other words, organizations that require diplomacy and really can't be threatened. The US also has the world's largest military (by far), with bases spread out in dozens of countries (Germany and Japan being good examples).

    I'm not saying the US should be able to do whatever it likes or that other countries should go along passively. But there are a variety of complicated international interests at play.

    Posted by: Paul R | Mar 13, 2012 2:18:26 PM


  19. Not exactly. There are several buildings in the US where the UN meets. But the International Court, for example, is one branch of the UN that meets in the Netherlands. These are international organizations as you rightly point out. So I don't understand why you think the US cannot be threatened. Because the UN HQ is in the US? It is just a building. The organization has members worldwide. Because the US has a large military? You just wrapped up one war, are still fighting another, are considering two more - but your country is broke. If the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany (members of the UN) condemned American intervention in Iran, for example, how far do you think you would get?

    Posted by: Brim | Mar 13, 2012 6:15:10 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Randy Rainbow Met Kirk Cameron on Grindr, Now They're Dating: VIDEO« «