Tweet
Fifty European parliament members have signed a letter to US officials to express concern about US government treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused whistleblower to WikiLeaks. Manning has been detained for well over five hundred days, and his pre-trial hearing at Fort Meade, Maryland, is scheduled for December 16.
The letter is directed to US President Barack Obama, members of the US Senate, members of the US House of Representatives, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Army John McHugh and US Army Chief of Staff Raymond T. Odierno. They are concerned about how long Manning has been in detention and that he is accused of “aiding the enemy,” a capital offense:
We are concerned that the US army has charged Bradley Manning with “aiding the enemy,” a capital offence that is punishable by death. We have questions about why Mr Manning has been imprisoned for 17 months without yet having had his day in court. We are troubled by reports that Mr Manning has been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement and other abusive treatment tantamount to torture. And we are disappointed that the US government has denied the request of the United Nations special rapporteur on torture to meet privately with Mr Manning in order to conduct an investigation of his treatment by US military authorities.
The signers urge the US government to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez to meet with Manning privately. The need for Mendez to be granted a private meeting is justified by the fact that Manning endured abusive treatment when he was detained at Quantico Marine brig. Cited are the revelations that came from a Freedom of Information request that showed the Quantico staff had mostly ignored recommendations made by the medical staff of the brig.
The letter outlines the risks posed if the US continues to prevent Mendez and other UN officials from doing their work:
By preventing UN officials from carrying out their duties, the United States government risks undermining support for the work of the United Nations elsewhere, particularly its mandate to investigate allegations of torture and human rights abuses. In order to uphold the rights guaranteed to Bradley Manning under international human rights law and the US constitution, it is imperative that the United Nations special rapporteur be allowed to properly investigate evidence of rights abuses. PFC Manning has a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. People accused of crimes must not be subjected to any form of punishment before being brought to trial.
This should not be controversial, but government officials and political leaders in Congress are likely to take issue with what they might call the European parliament’s efforts to impose “constraints” on the US and dictate how it should handle those currently detained. The UN may have a mandate to investigate allegations of torture and human rights abuse, but the US government has no interest in investigating such abuse or war crimes. Investigations might produce evidence that would compel those investigating to indict current or former officials involved in wrongdoing. They might force an assessment of “war on terror” policies and create a road bump for those handling people in military or even civilian prisons.
This is why Sen. John McCain and Sen. Carl Levin expect all Americans and those in government to take them at their word when they write about why the indefinite detention provision in the current 2012 defense authorization bill is needed:
The United States has struggled to craft laws and procedures to prosecute the unprecedented kind of war that came to our shores on Sept. 11, 2001. The courts, Congress and two presidential administrations have gradually, often ad hoc, developed a system that seeks to uphold our values and honors our Constitution while protecting national security. Congress — in particular, the Senate Armed Services Committee — has worked hard to establish in law this important balance rather than rely solely on court orders and executive orders that can change with administrations.
They hit on what is making the bill “controversial.”
The most controversial point involves the circumstances under which a terrorist detainee should be held in military, rather than civilian, custody. The bill provides that a narrowly defined group of people — al-Qaeda terrorists who participate in planning or conducting attacks against us — be held in military custody.
However, the bill does allow the administration, through a waiver, to hold these al-Qaeda detainees in civilian custody if it determines that would best serve national security. Moreover, the administration has broad authority to decide who is covered by this provision and how and when such a decision is made.
Clearly, McCain and Levin are advocating another further expansion of executive power. Sen. Mark Udall in a rebuttal today calls them out for downplaying this provision saying, “The secretary of defense, the directors of national intelligence and the FBI, and the White House — along with numerous defense experts — have said this would amount to a significant expansion of the military’s detention authority.”
The provision, Udall adds, “would require the military to take on a new responsibility as police, jailors and judges — jobs for which it is not equipped and which it does not want. These changes to our laws would also authorize the military to exercise unprecedented power on U.S. soil.” Namely, US citizens could be taken into military custody. US citizens could be treated like Bradley Manning was treated at Quantico or, worse, how detainees have been treated at Guantanamo Bay.
McCain and Levin’s call for more deference to power contrasts with the concerns of these fifty European parliamentarians, who are not only concerned with Manning’s treatment but also condemn the US for “threatening” Manning with the death penalty (which the European Union opposes). Additionally, they contend, “Bradley Manning should not be forced to waive his right against self-incrimination in order to speak with anyone who seeks to investigate evidence of abuse in their official capacity.”
One would like to see those in Congress and the Obama Administration respond to the concerns expressed. But, the reason why these concerns will be ignored is similar to why people like Sen. Mark Udall sometimes seem like they are baying at the moon. The US government believes that no matter how mistreated or unjust the process for handling terrorists or those in military detention might be, the fact that the person was actually detained is more important than anything else. And the alleged necessity for detention will be used over and over again as an excuse to justify mistreatment.
That is not to say that European parliamentarians should not write letters to the US government or that the UN should not continue to condemn the US for its actions. But the system that holds Bradley Manning is the same system that currently holds detainees, who have not been convicted of anything, indefinitely at Guantanamo. The values of national security that delay and prevent justice for the detainees at Guantanamo are the same values that have delayed and prevented Bradley Manning from enjoying the right to a speedy trial as well.
22 Comments
Thanks, Kevin, for keeping a spotlight on this utter subversion of anything resembling the Rule of Law. Good for the Europeans for keeping up the pressure as to Bradley Manning.
How does the U.S. expect the U.S. Rapporteur on Torture to aid Americans imprisoned and tortured abroad if we keep blowing him off as to Manning? Silly question, I know.
Senators John McCain (R) and Carl Levin (D) have both violated their respective oaths to defend the Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign. They have become, themselves, domestic enemies. “Bipartisan” and “constitutional” need not be the same — and here they are not.
Meanwhile, Manning’s lawyer is seeking documents from the government:
“The evidence Coombs seeks includes copies of internal reports conducted by task forces assessing the damage from and the classification levels of the 250,000 State Department diplomatic cables and 500,000 classified Iraq and Afghanistan war field reports allegedly leaked by Manning to WikiLeaks.
“Published information about the various reports put them at odds with each other, Coombs notes. One assessment conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that all of the information allegedly leaked was dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already commonly known due to previous public disclosures, while an official at another government office indicated that the leaks had caused damage to national security.
“Coombs wants to use the DIA report, along with another unpublished one apparently commissioned by the White House, to ban witnesses from describing the leaks as more damaging than these official reports found them to be.”
LINK.
I probably should have mentioned this in the post. Maybe in an hour I will add as an update because this further shows how the US is more interested in the values of so-called national security instead of human rights.
In international terms, the United States has become the 1%, seeking to have its way about cluster bombs, torture, and assassinations. Eleanor Roosevelt must be shuddering in her grave.
It is very heartening that world representatives are beginning to band together in opposition to imperialism cloaked in noblesse oblige and “security” issues. Exeptionalism is just another way of saying ‘we are the 1%’.
how the US is more interested in the values of so-called national security instead of human rights.how the US is more interested in covering the asses of the real criminals in the Pentagon, White House, State Department, CIA and who knows what other agencies and intimidating truth seekers instead of giving a shit about national security, integrity, rule of law, or human rights.
Fixed it for you.
Oh, thanks. Why I say “so called.”
Oh, don’t mind me. I’m just an old news-junkie, linking to items that I stumble across in hopes of being helpful.
No sooner typed that, than here’s another, LOL.
“Nearly half of registered voters in California say they personally identify with the Occupy movement and an even larger number said they agreed with the reason behind the protest, according to a Field Poll released today.”
LINK.
cue domestic terrorist false flag attack, bill becomes law, americans want it to keep us safe and you wake up the next day to find your yard has been declared a battlefield because you grow non GMO veggies
Oooorrr…. cue CIA operator firebombing a bank branch and conveniently leaving behind a trail of evidence pointing to a local Occupation. Bill becomes law, all Occupations across the country are declared to be Occupying battlefields. Movement squashed.
When you live in an authoritarian country, one of the best levers for possible liberalization and openness is intervention from states which are democracies or NGO’s that embody democratic values.
During the Cold War, the United States, then a Constitutional democracy, put pressure on the Soviet Union this way. Since we now have little or no access to the levers of power, we’re fortunate that countries still embodying our former values are putting public pressure on our government.
With headlines this week on the order of, “Senate Set to Vote on Bill that Defines the U.S. as a Battlefield,” I wish I could say you’re being far-fetched, but you aren’t.
The War on Terror is in reality the War on Whistleblowers.
Fortunely for us, there are a lot of countries that have axes to grind for how they’ve been exploited by the US.
Thanks for the update on this one, Kevin. Good to know. Of course, the 1% in Team USA will give them all the middle finger, including their hired hand, Barack Hussein Obama, who’s only too happy to give a Bronx Cheer to the so-called “Rule of Law,” or the “US Constitution,” or the concept laughingly called “Democracy.”
Mind boggling that these people, who claim to love the constitution so much, are clueless about what it represents. The whole point of the constitution
iswas to keep the government from doing these things.Contract law , this and no more.
We have a sacred law with weasels protecting the citizens.
You know the difference between foxes and weasels ? Foxes kill to live and weasels live to kill.
Jerry speaks:
“Spurred by graphic images from recent police uses of force at UC campuses, Gov. Jerry Brown has requested that state police officers review their policies for using force and make changes to their guidelines accordingly.”
LINK.
By the way, the European parliament doesn’t just have members that speak up on Bradley Manning but also people who speak up about the likely extradition of Julian Assange from the UK to Sweden too. You won’t find any Congress members speaking out about the future of Assange and asking what the US involvement is in keeping him in legal limbo.
Thanks for keeping Manning’s name in the public eye. That is, sadly 50 more European politicians than American politicians showing an interest in Manning’s treatment.
Kevin, I add my voice to the thank you’s for keeping this man’s name within our awareness. Who would have thought, that in the same nation that the Pentagon Papers were released, this would unfold as it has. Amazing times we are living in.
They do not live to kill.
Only humans sociopaths do that, and cats– but even that is a by product of having fun.