Bradley Manning treatment in custody concerns MEPs

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

More than 50 members of the European parliament have signed an open letter to the US government raising concerns about the treatment of Bradley Manning, the US soldier in military detention for allegedly leaking classified US documents to the whistleblowing site WikiLeaks.

The call on the US government comes before a pre-trial hearing – Manning's first appearance in court – which begins on 16 December.

The MEPs said internal investigations into Manning's treatment in custody, which included solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, inspections by officers every five minutes from 5am onwards and removal of his clothes, had been marred by "clear conflicts of interest".

They call for US authorities to grant Juan Méndez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, access to Manning.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/bradley-manning-concerns-mep-letter

[hack89]

1. They are six months too late

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/bradley-manning-jail-conditions-improve

And Mendez was granted access to Manning.

[msanthrope]

2. Mendez was granted access to Manning. He just needs to obey the rules everyone else does.

No special exceptions for Mr. Manning.

[go west young man]

4. Are you inferring he was given or asked for special treatment previously

or just spewing bullshit?

[hack89]

6. He asked for un-monitored access

which which is special treatment.

[go west young man]

8. Let's be clear. Bradley Manning didn't ask for unmonitored access.

The UN special rapporteur did ask for unmonitored access as the UN does in all cases.
It's impossible to ascertain the treatment and conditions of a prisoner in a governments
custody if the government that is punishing the prisoner monitors that meeting. Governments
tend to use that info to implicate the prisoner further or punish the prisoner. Now can you
explain why the US should be granted special exceptions to UN rules?

[hack89]

9. Because the UN has no power in America - our laws are the only ones that matter. nt

[EFerrari]

10. And our word means nothing, apparently, when we sign agreements

like the UN Convention against Torture. What a sad little place this is.

[hack89]

14. Except we never signed the OPCAT so we are true to our word. nt

[EFerrari]

16. Go read what we signed before you try to weasel out of it.

Really, it's embarrassing.

[hack89]

18. The UN special rapporteur's access is governed by the OPCAT

that is why he was denied special access.

The OPCAT was created specifically to set up a system of prison inspections.

[EFerrari]

38. And yet that changes not a whit the agreement we signed

regarding the practice of torture.

[hack89]

42. Never said it did.

it simply means the UN is blowing smoke when they think they can have unfettered access to US prisons and prisoners.

[unionworks]

76. "Take me to the brig"

"I want to see the real Marines". - Chesty Puller, while doing a base inspection

[hack89]

115. I doubt Chesty had Bradley Manning in mind when he said that. nt

[unionworks]

128. I respect your feelings

And understand what you mean. I worked as a DOD contractor and was bound by dod rules of secrecy. I could not look at the people around me and do something that would harm my family in arms. Thanks for your service.

[No Elephants]

88. Wrong. He was denied access because he was denied access. No law requires us to deny access.

[hack89]

107. No law requires us to grant access

it is a domestic US matter - it was a simple policy decision by the President.

[msanthrope]

109. Actually, I'd make the EP argument that Manning does not deserve a privilege not granted to others.

If millions of prisoners are subject to monitoring, why not Mr. Manning?

[go west young man]

21. So you seem to think.

Injustice at home and abroad affect foreign policy abroad. It affects the US as an honest partner in bilateral agreements.
It affects the reputation of the United States and those who serve her. The reputation of the United States is currently
quite dismal around the world. Abiding by international law can only enhance it's standing. I see it as foolish and harmful
to miss an opportunity to show that we are better than countries like Belarus or Myanmar.

You seem to believe the US can do no wrong. Considering the current state of US affairs that attitude has gotten the US
into a lot of trouble. Can do no wrong in Iraq. Can do no wrong foreign policy. Can do no wrong financial system. Can do
no wrong bought congress. Can do no wrong militarized police. Looks to the rest of the world that the US has done plenty
of wrong. There is a thing called the internet these days. You should use it.

Here's a link to what the EU MP's are concerned about for those that are interested. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/bradley-manning-mep-open-letter
Top of the list is Manning's 17 month confinement without being given his day in court and his being placed on "prevention of injury" status despite
medical personnel signing off that he wasn't a danger to himself. The military does this so they can keep you in solitary and keep waking you. It is
sleep deprivation which is tantamount to torture.

Juan Mendez' who was formerly a prisoner of the Argentinian regime of Pinochet is the UN rapporteur seeking justice for Bradley.

Personally I feel Bradley Manning could be the best soldier the US military has ever had. If what is alleged is true. He exposed injustice and murder.
He may have also leaked the documents that led to the entire Middle East uprising by exposing the back hand dealings of the US govt with despots
and dictators. Hence we have now had governments overthrown in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya. Whilst Bahrain, UAE, and Syria are on the brink with people seeking
freedom from the very same dictators the US chooses to do business with. The cat is out of the bag and Bradley Manning may be the soldier who
did more for US foreign policy than any other soldier in history. The entire US war machine took more than a decade to overthrow 2 poor countries
whilst one US soldier may have single handedly overthrown the entire fucking Middle East! Give that man a fucking medal! He's the best thing to come
out of America in ages.

[hack89]

26. No - I think that UN officials need to obey US laws when in America

I don't give a flying fuck who Juan Mendez - he has no authority to demand anything from us.

[go west young man]

29. Great attitude. No wonder we're fucked globally.

That soundbite would work great for the Teabagging party by the way.
Here's a link for Juan so that you can educate yourself (although that may be a long shot)http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Juan_E._Mendez

[hack89]

30. I am sure he is a wonderful guy

he still doesn't have the right to demand things of us. We are a sovereign nation.

[go west young man]

33. Your a sovereign nation in a fast changing world.

Here's the definition of sovereign by the way.. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
b. A national governing council or committee.
2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders.

I guess that your correct however that is not an asset in this case. Everyone needs friends. Isolationism means getting left behind. Better to be at the
forefront than left wondering what the fuck happened to your nation.

[hack89]

37. "Sovereign nation" = every independent country in the world.

who the fuck was talking about Kings and Queens. I suggest you google Sovereignty and learn something.

[go west young man]

46. I'm not sure what your talking about.

Your actually typing. You've just given me an idea though. Maybe someone can
develop a thick messy bold font specifically for nationalist people like yourself to use when
your trying to spew your nationalist vitriol.

[hack89]

49. So what exactly inspired you to post that definition of sovereign

considering it has no bearing on what I said.

To make it easy for you, this is the definition of sovereignty I was discussing:

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided.

[go west young man]

52. Look Rome was a sovereign state as is the congo.

It doesn't mean shit. Every country in the world declares themselves independent
of every other country. At the end of the day your just a state or country in vast world
of 193 "sovereign" states. My point is the US is no different than every other country when
it comes to respecting international law.

[hack89]

53. And my point is the UN has no sovereign powers

and has no right to interfere with the US judicial system. No one has given them that right or power.

[go west young man]

55. No the UN is not sovereign.

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace.
It is much more than a sovereign state. It was created by FDR and Churchill in 1942 in order to facilitate progress amongst the "sovereign" states of the world. The UN is much more important than the US. Let's not forget the US went
to war with Iraq without a UN mandate and look how that turned out. The US lied, 100's of thousands died, the US's reputation has suffered immensely, the lier's still remain at large protected by the US federal govt. It's amazing you don't
scream for Cheney the way you do for Bradley Manning's head considering Cheney and the Yellow Cake Plame thing has led to 5000 US service members deaths. That's where real justice needs to be served.

[hack89]

56. The UN is not more important than any single country

lets not forget one single fact - you don't have to embrace democracy, freedom or civil rights to be part of the UN. They welcome every dictator and despot with open arms. And people from those countries serve on every UN committee and organization.

So don't give me shit about the lofty ideals of the UN - when you think UN you are thinking of Western European liberal ideals. I can assure you that that is not what the UN means to China, North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any of the other non-democratic states in the world.

[go west young man]

58. Maybe you should do a bit of research.

It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill who created it with those 'lofty ideals"
you so despise. It would of been a bit paradoxical to not include the rest of the world don't ya think?
What would of been the point to exclude nations? Change comes from within. I'm sure they saw further
than your short sightedness when they came up with the idea while also saving the world from fascism.
Or did they not really have a clue? Maybe they should have consulted you first?

[hack89]

68. Do you think they would approve of dictatorships and police states

being members with full rights? I doubt it.

[go west young man]

70. Man you need to read up.

You do realize the original charter was drawn up with Stalin involved? I do believe he was a dictator of a police state.
Here's a link to the principles and guidelines of the UN. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
In the modern day countries such as Myanmar, North Korea, Bahrain and Belarus are all members. Read the charter
and maybe you'll understand (although I doubt it) why Roosevelt and Churchill thought it a nobel idea.

One of the most important lines in the charter is "by peaceful means". This is where the US currently fails on a grand scale.

[hack89]

102. So Stalin embodied the UN ideals?

or was he a pragmatic ruler that used the UN to.protect his place.in the world?

[hack89]

103. Shall we list all those wars and genocides the UN failed stop? nt

[go west young man]

123. So your philosophy is never attempt to have all the countries

of the world working together?

[hack89]

124. No - just understand and accept the limitations of the organization nt

[duhneece]

61. If there wasn't already a United Nations, we'd have to create one

We need an organization that spans oceans, political & national boundaries to share problems & solutions, to attempt to prevent wars.

[go west young man]

63. Well put.

[hack89]

66. Should it give an equal voice to human right violators

depots, theocracies, police states? How is the UN a voice for.democratic values when democracy is not even a prerequisite?

The UN has some value but there are many countries that would use it.has another weapon to attack their enemies.

[go west young man]

71. The irony is that the country that most recently used it for

nefarious means is the United States. They even went so far as to bug the headquarters of the UN while misleading
members about WMD. Another paradox is that the UN was set up to debate the issues that affect the world yet you
want to shut the world out by excluding states. Seeking a higher standard even with people with which we disagree is
a nobel endeavor. According to your reasoning we should never enter into dialogue with our enemies. Is it possible
situations can be resolved {through the UN} before conflict ever comes about?

[hack89]

110. The counter argument is now the non-democratic states have a platform

to block any real attempts for change. Look at the long list of wars, genocides, civil unrest and try to tell me that the UN is really making a difference. Just how has UN membership made North Korea a less deadly place for its citizens? Why has the UN let millions die in Africa over the last decade?

[duhneece]

121. The US violates human rights and we have a voice

No nation (Few nations, I should say, like Finland maybe) is entirely innocent of human rights violations. That cannot be the standard to have a voice at the 'table of nations'.

[hack89]

127. No - put it puts lie to the argument that the UN always embodies progressive ideals

for many non-democratic nations, it is simply a place to protect their place in the world. The UN has been used to protect vile and illegal behavior with absolutely no official UN condemnation.

[No Elephants]

87. Another huge straw man. The UN made no attempt to interfere with the U.S. judicial system.

[hack89]

101. Besides demanding special privledges to interview Manning. nt

[No Elephants]

79. He has a right to ask. No law against asking.

[msanthrope]

112. Funny how Mr. Manning's attorney is not asking. Ever wonder why? nt

[Nihil]

100. "We are a sovereign nation."

:spray:

Newsflash: The rest of the world has seen exactly how much concern
you show over the independence of "sovereign nations" and yet you
are still so full of American Exceptionalism that you don't see how
hypocritical you are ...

:rofl: :patriot: :rofl:

[hack89]

116. You have a valid point.

we need to stop invading countries and starting wars. We also don't need the UN poking their noses in domestic issues.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

72. Oh. You're one of those.

Got it.

[No Elephants]

80. Mendez did not break any U.S. laws, which is a lot more than can be said about the U.S. government.

"The MEPs said internal investigations into Manning's treatment in custody, which included solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, inspections by officers every five minutes from 5am onwards and removal of his clothes, had been marred by "clear conflicts of interest"."

See Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. Is a party.

[clixtox]

99. The basic axiom of International Law is "Sovereignty".

Sovereignty means, among other things, that EVERY countries territorial integrity and international border inviolability rights are supreme.

The USA, unfortunately, doesn't obey International Law now. The only law the USA observes is, "Might makes Right!"

The USA, literally led by the "Secret Team" fronted by the "intelligence agencies", mainly the CIA, blatantly contravenes International Law with apparent impunity, and has at least since assassinating the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953, attempted coup in Indonesia in 1958, the "Bay Of Pigs" in 1961, Francis Gary Powers ill-fated 1960 U2 flight over the USSR, our initial involvement in Vietnam in the late 1950s and 1960s, "Air America", unsuccessful assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, Iran/Contra and myriads of "special ops" around the world, ever since. The "NATO" helicopter that killed the Pakistani troops this week was likely a CIA asset. The "drone" program, run by the CIA, is beyond blatant and a war crime, prima facie.

The USA is the number one terrorist organization on the planet!

We're #1!

International Law and the Constitution of the United States are now useless anachronisms, according to the 1%.

It's back to the future all over again!

Feudalism is back in America, big time...

99% serfs, indentured and enslaved, take your pick!

[EFerrari]

11. No, it isn't. It's SOP for torture investigations. nt

[hack89]

13. Can you show me the applicable US laws? nt

[No Elephants]

90. Irrelevant to whether it is SOP for torture investigations. Show us the US laws that mandated

that we refuse Mendez's request.

[hack89]

105. You have it backwards

we don't need a law that specifically allows us to ignore UN attempts to insert themselves in US domestic issues.

[hack89]

15. Did you forget that the US is not a signatory to the OPCAT?

it is not our SOP.

[No Elephants]

81. You seem proud of our refusal to sign the Optional Protocol Against Torture.

[hack89]

114. No - just pointing out some facts. nt

[Matariki]

27. Unmonitored access is standard procedure to determine if someone is being tortured

The US is behaving like a dictatorship hiding torture.

You shouldn't be an apologist for that.

[hack89]

32. No - it is called for in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT)

America has never signed the OPCAT. UN rules become law in America only after Congress ratifies the appropriate UN treaty.

The UN does not have a legal leg to stand on.

[No Elephants]

91. Irrelevant to whether it is SOP for torture investigations. The only thing relevant to that claim

is the way most torture investigations are conducted, not what any law or treaty says.

[hack89]

126. We get to decide matters like that

If we like the international standard we sign and ratify the appropriate treaty and incorporate the language into US domestic law. Lets not forget a simple non-negotiable fact - nothing overrides the Constitution and the system it lays out for laws and justice. And the Supreme Court has made it clear that if it is not incorporated into US domestic law then international law is not US law.

So - it does not matter what is SOP for the UN regarding access to Manning. If it is not allowed for in US law then it is irrelevant.

The SOP in this case is what our domestic laws, regulations and procedures says it is. The UN does not dictate US domestic policy.

[msanthrope]

23. Yes. Mendez asked for an unmonitored visit, contrary to US law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un-diplomat-is-denied-unmonitored-meeting-with-wikileaks-suspect/2011/04/11/AFgfAzLD_story.html

Mendez can always meet with Manning's attorney. Why hasn't he?

[go west young man]

31. The UN doesn't deal with go betweens.

They deal directly with political prisoners. As it should be. You obviously can't see the higher moral ground here.
It's just speculation on my part but you seem too wrapped in your flag to look beyond and globally at how this is
perceived. You are actually doing an injustice to lady liberty. The US must abide by the same rules as every other
country or the US's global reputation will suffer. That in turn will cause unforseeable problems in the future and
could even lead to future wars. The truth will set you free. Unfortunately since 2001 the US has had blinders on
like an out of control angry frat boy just lashing out. Bradley Manning (allegedly) exposed that angry frat boy to the
light of day and now your mad about it. It's as simple as that.

[hack89]

35. Wrong - we only have to abide by those UN laws that we ratify and make US law.

Nothing overrules US laws and the Constitution - nothing.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

83. Huge straw man. Neither requesting an unmonitored visit nor granting one violates the

Constitution or U.S. law.

That is so whether or not we became Party to OPCAT--and it is disgusting that we never did, just as it is disgusting how long it took us to become Parties to the Convention Against Torture.

But, go ahead, keep repeating that we are Parties to OPCAT. At least that is, while shameful, factually accurate.

[hack89]

106. And saying no does not constitute a violation of international law

it is a domestic US matter.

I am not saying we parties to OPCAT.

[msanthrope]

45. Manning's attorney isn't a go-between. And he's not alleging torture, or denial of a fair

trial.


The higher moral ground, under US law, is that Bradley Manning gets the same rights as every other prisoner.

[go west young man]

48. The higher moral ground under international UN mandate

is that the UN rapporteur speak directly and privately with the prisoner when requested.
US law is not as globally accepted as UN law. Educate yourself. We are one country of 193.

[msanthrope]

51. Actually, we are 1 country out of 175 who apparently don't allow unmonitored visits.

Mendez himself said he only got 18 countries to allow him unmonitored visits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un-diplomat-is-denied-unmonitored-meeting-with-wikileaks-suspect/2011/04/11/AFgfAzLD_story.html


I guess 'UN law' (whatever the fuck that is!) isn't as widely accepted as you think.

[go west young man]

57. Maybe the US should strive for higher ideals instead of being

1 nation of 175 who don't seek daylight for justice. All 175 have a long way to go but the higher ideal
exists for a reason. So that all nations can be held to account for their actions. Just because we're not
their yet doesn't mean we can't be one day. I see that glass as half full.

[msanthrope]

60. Actually, I think the US is protecting the concept of 'equal justice under law'

when it doesn't allow Manning's visitors special privileges denied to others.

[No Elephants]

86. LOL! While we're at it, please cite all the "others" who were denied this request.

[msanthrope]

108. Um, you've never been to a prison, have you??? 28 CFR 543.13 carves out

the auditory monitoring exception for prisoners during their attorney visits.

Kindly show us all where Bradley Manning's right to unmonitored visits by others is granted to him, under US law?

[No Elephants]

89. Very shameful of us, when you look at the nations that HAVE ratified and/or signed OPCAT:

As of August 2011, 60 states have ratified the protocol: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.<1>

A further 22 countries have signed but not ratified the protocol: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Madagascar, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Timor-Leste, Turkey, and Zambia.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_Protocol_to_the_Convention_against_Torture_and_other_Cruel,_Inhuman_or_Degrading_Treatment_or_Punishment

[hack89]

129. UN law is not accepted as US law until it is Incorporated into domestic law

step one: ratify UN treaty
step two: pass enabling legislation as required.

The Supreme Court has made it very clear - nothing succeeds the Constitution and the process it lays out for legislation and justice. If it is not made part of domestic law then international law is irrelevant in the American justice system.

[duhneece]

62. US allows torture, i.e. solitary confinement

Sickening. Not because of who an inmate is, but because WE the American people are better than that, that I want all solitary confinement to be acknowledged as torture and torture should truly remain illegal & that illegality enforced.

[No Elephants]

92. The OP cites:

"The MEPs said internal investigations into Manning's treatment in custody, which included solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, inspections by officers every five minutes from 5am onwards and removal of his clothes, had been marred by "clear conflicts of interest"."


Inspections every FIVE MINUTES from FIVE A.M. onwards. And presumably, while the man was naked.

[No Elephants]

84. First, the higher moral ground has nothing to do with law. Second, refusing to sign OPCAT has

nothing to do with higher moral ground.

The higher moral ground would be to become party to OPCAT, however belatedly, and, failing that, to act as though we were Parties, even though we are not obligated so to do.


"The MEPs said internal investigations into Manning's treatment in custody, which included solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, inspections by officers every five minutes from 5am onwards and removal of his clothes, had been marred by "clear conflicts of interest".


Pretending that any of this has anything to do with the higher moral ground is downright laughable.

[No Elephants]

82. Which U.S. law does asking violate again? Menez did nothing contrary to U.S. law.

Granting his request would not have violated U.S. law, either.

[defendandprotect]

3. Thought that solitary confinement had been ended --

haven't checked the guardian report yet -- back later!

[hack89]

7. It ended six month ago when he was transferred to Leavenworth. nt

[go west young man]

5. Gotta like this line at the end of the guardian article.

The Article 32 hearing then makes a recommendation to a general as to whether to proceed to a full trial.

In the military the prosecuting officers and those that oversee the article 32 hearing answer directly to the commanding general who decides when and if they get promoted.
Military justice is pure bullshit. An obvious conflict of interest. Someone like Bradley Manning is at at the whim of the military political wind. And that wind literally blows.
There is no justice in a military regime. You are at the mercy of the dictatorship that is the military. All military are dictatorships. Your rights don't exist when you join.
You are considered government property.

[vminfla]

12. I guess Manning should not have committed treason then

If he is going to be denied a fair trial, best not to illegally procur classified US military information and hand it off to a Swiss citizen.

[EFerrari]

17. There is no excuse for depriving an American citizen of a fair trial. nt

[hack89]

19. So what would make the trial "fair"?

are you saying that every military trial is by definition "unfair"?

[go west young man]

22. I am and the reason that is so is listed in post #5.

[hack89]

25. Those aren't reasons - it is an emotional, un-informed rant. nt

[go west young man]

44. Sorry but your wrong there.

I'm an ex-marine, 0341 mortar man 85-88 who like many others have stood before a military tribunal.
Military justice is biased. That's why they keep it in the military. It works for them.

[hack89]

47. Retired Navy - I vehemently disagree. nt

[go west young man]

50. Who presides over the trial?

Who are the attorneys? Who are the prosecutors? Who is the CO bringing charges?
Are they all assigned to the same command? Yes they are. They are all associated and
they all rely on the commanding officer for promotion. What do you think happens when
an attorney rubs a CO the wrong way. No fucking promotion. No pay raise. The whole
system is fucked. You just trust it because you believe in your country. That obvious
from your posts. Your opinion is formed within a nationalist view.

[go west young man]

64. Still waiting on answer for post 50. Any day you want to chime in.

[hack89]

67. I am trying to decide which day is better. nt

[go west young man]

75. I assume that means you don't have a rebuttal to my argument.

[hack89]

113. We are not arguing facts - we have differing opinions

I know how court martial work - I sat on several. You think they can't be impartial while I say they can.

We disagree - not a big deal happens all the time.

[go west young man]

117. It seems that all your opinions are formed around " we can do no wrong".

[hack89]

120. No - in this case they are based on real life experience. nt

[go west young man]

122. A biased real life experience as you have disclosed that

you presided over court martials as a senior navy officer.

[hack89]

125. No - I was not senior. I sat as a member. nt

[No Elephants]

93. When was Manning's military trial again?

[tammywammy]

104. Pretrial starts Dec 16 n/t

[vminfla]

20. And he will have his day in court, confession and all

Bradley Manning: "i cant believe what im confessing to you"

Manning confessing to his crimes

[msanthrope]

24. Interestingly, his attorney is not alleging that he is being denied a fair trial.

Why are you?

Why gainsay his counsel?

[EFerrari]

36. Ths may seem strange to you but I don't rely on authorities

to form my own opinions.

And, that his attorney is not making this argument in court does not indicate that it is or is not his opinion.

[msanthrope]

41. Well, now you are accusing his attorney of malfeasance.

If an attorney thinks his client is not getting due process, it is their duty and obligation to object to the court, and attempt to remedy it.

This is not an option. This is a DUTY.

Just as if his client was being tortured, Mr. Coombs would have a DUTY to report it and attempt to remedy it.

Interestingly, Mr. Coombs has made neither claim.

[No Elephants]

95. His counse. has n ever said Manning is NOT being denied a fair trial, so there's no gainsaying.

Besides, who says Manning's counsel is perfect?

Many Constitutional appeals are made and won on the basis of ineffective counsel?

These claims get sillier and sillier.

[msanthrope]

111. So now his attorney is ineffective???? Poor Mr. Coombs. I guess there's no pleasing the people who

aren't paying his fees......

[go west young man]

28. Question for ya.

Since 2006 Wikileaks has published over 1.2 million documents making headlines and exposing corruption
around the entire globe. Why should the US be given a free pass when it is doing nefarious deeds? I'm sure
China, Myanmar, Russia, Kazakhstan and many other countries have people like you who wholeheartedly obey
their leaders regardless of the actions of that leadership. I'm sure you would see the whistle blowers from those
countries as on "YOUR" side but in actuality aren't you just a nationalistic servant of an immoral agenda? Your
just defending the state. No different than a German soldier in WW2. Or J Edgar Hoover. At the end of the day
your on the wrong side. How do you see yourself? I'm curious.

[vminfla]

34. Treason has consequences and no man is above the law

Manning should get used to the fact that his actions will result in a prison term in excess of a quarter century. He was not a whistleblower who released a handful of documents that highlight a specific crime. He indiscriminately released *all* documents that he could get his hands on outside of his direct authority, violating the laws he took an oath to uphold. Do you believe that Bradley Manning is above the law?

[go west young man]

40. I believe what he (allegedly) did has served the greater good

of the United States and will make for a better country in the future. I believe
he deserves a fucking medal!

[hack89]

43. Send him one - I am sure prisoners are allowed trinkets. nt

[unionworks]

74. do you remember

"Lard" from the T.v. series "Black Sheep Squadron"?:rofl: :rofl:

[vminfla]

54. The ends justify the means?

No way to run a country. His actions resulted in a great deal of hardship for many innocent civilians, some now risking religious and political persecution because of his actions. But, those are ok, right?

[go west young man]

59. If only you guys spent as much energy attempting to bring Cheney to trial!

After all his outing of a CIA operative and the lies that were involved in that case led to
the deaths of over 5000 US military personnel and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people.
Yet your only bothered when an insignificant soldier exposes corruption within the system.
The funny thing is that the corruption doesn't bother you. Just the fact that it got out. Laughable.
And you guys wrap yourselves up in the flag? Amazing.

[BadtotheboneBob]

73. And you've done what to bring Cheney to trial?

Filed a complaint with the UN Human Rights Commission? Initiated a mass petition drive? Written and called the current administration demanding his arrest? What? Anyway, this is about Manning, not Cheney.

[go west young man]

77. It's about hypocrisy and the reputation of the United States.

As for what I have done you can only speculate as I can also do about you.
I can speculate that you believe Bradley Manning is more dangerous to the US
than Dick Cheney hence your comment. Which leads me to ask what are you doing
on DU defending Dick "lying through his teeth, getting fucking rich off the blood of US
servicemen" Cheney?

[No Elephants]

96. Oh, please, Louise.

[vminfla]

118. Red Herring

Manning made a confession that he indiscriminately released sensitive information that resulted in the religous and political persecution of innocent civilians.
Let's stick to the topic at hand.

[No Elephants]

94. Straw man. No one said Manning was above the law. And again, he's not been convicted of treason.

[No Elephants]

85. Kindly indicate where it has been proven that Manning committed treason.

[vminfla]

119. His confession is going to go a long way with a successful prosecution

People are alluding to the fact that he will not get a "fair trial". In fact, he will get a fair trial. Smart money, though, is that fair trial will result in a conviction based on his confession and the digital forensic trail that he left behind.

[Azathoth]

65. lol, I'm sure we'll give it the same consideration that the European parliament would give to a

letter signed by fifty ultra-right-wing US Congressmen.

[unionworks]

69. I could not

...do what Bradley Manning did. I would look at the people serving beside me, and realizefully the consequences of betrayal- that somewhere, in a place far away it would cost my family in arms in blood and pain. That said, transparency in the governments in the world would lead to a more peaceful and free place for us all. I don't have the answer. On Manning - the kids life is over. What earthly purpose is served by mistreating a prisoner. Other than to give our enemies propaganda fodder?

[defendandprotect]

78. Doesn't look good -- certainly the military/government behavior is still to be questioned ...

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," they wrote.

"We certainly do not understand why an alleged whistleblower is being threatened with the death penalty, or the possibility of life in prison. We also question whether Bradley Manning's right to due process has been upheld, as he has now spent over 17 months in pre-trial confinement."

Not sure the article is telling us all we need to know -- like who is being permitted to visit

him, if anyone?

What is his physical and psychological condition after 23 months of solitary confinement?

[No Elephants]

97. Easy to see why the RW demonizes the UN.

[Solly Mack]

98. K&R

[lovuian]

130. even Europe knows what torture is

and it seems America does not