General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmnesty International: USA must not hunt down or prosecute whistleblower Edward Snowden
USA must not hunt down whistleblower Edward Snowden
The US authorities must not prosecute anyone for disclosing information about the government’s human rights violations, Amnesty International said after Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act.
...
"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the US government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression," said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.
...
The organization noted that an individual cannot be extradited while they have an asylum claim under way in any country.
"Regardless of where Snowden ends up he has the right to seek asylum. For such a claim to succeed, he must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Even if such a claim failed, no country can return a person to another country where there is a substantial risk of ill-treatment,” said Brown.
“His forced transfer to the USA would put him at great risk of human rights violations and must be challenged.”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-must-not-hunt-down-whistleblower-edward-snowden-2013-06-24
Edit to add the poster Amnesty just tweeted out
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is amnesty racist, or just hard core Right Wing Paulite?
On a more serious matter, echelon kept files on them during the 90s
Catherina
(35,568 posts)We're going to need an ocean liner soon. There's NO more room under this bus!
Thank you for that information.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I found that while researching echelon.
Believe it or not NGOs are seen as a threat. I can certainly understand that, given some of the shit I got o do as part of one.
tblue
(16,350 posts)May as well have a party. We're gonna be here for some time. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)A fleet will be necessary before this over and all actual Democrats and Civil Rights Organizations and Liberal Bloggers and Authors, philosophers and voters who don't like their rights violated, are heard from.
Snowden revealed more than those documents revealed. Now we know where we stand and that is always a good thing..
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)'One Issue Voters', so to speak. This is what anyone will expect them to say, and it will have about as much impact on what happens as a feather.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Don't bother answering...your shtick grew thin a while ago.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Ouch.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)does this mean you disagree with them or you wish their voice was more powerful?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If so, read this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080703
It's a paragraph from Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland.
This surveillance program violates our Constitution. And no less than Thurgood Marshall would agree with my assessment.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Last Updated: Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter....
full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Where did that come from?
dkf
(37,305 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I understand Amnesty's claims in its role as as a human rights organization, but to claim that a program conducted within the laws of this country is "unlawful" is a ridiculous.
It's no different from Snowden's claim of "criminality."
dkf
(37,305 posts)Wow. Just wow.
"Are you kidding me? You think that what North Korea does isn't legal in their country?
Wow. Just wow."
...I'm not kidding. Apparently you need to re-read my point.
DOMA is legal in this country. Congress voted it into law, that doesn't mean it's Constitutional or not a violation of human rights.
The notion though that an NSA program passed by Congress is "unlawful," and that the administration's actions are "unlawful," can only be subject to what is lawful in this country. It can still be determined to be unconstitutional, but it is not "unlawful."
dkf
(37,305 posts)It's above an individual country and what their laws may say.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)There are a number of treaties, and conventions, many of which the United States will not adhere to. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_All_Persons_from_Enforced_Disappearance
We would not sign a declaration that prohibited Governments from disappearing individuals. In other words, we would not sign an international treaty prohibiting Rendition. Isn't that a human right? The right not to be captured, detained indefinitely without judicial review?
Yes, we have become a leading Human Rights violator, and many of us shout and scream we have to because if we don't, the terrorists will win.
We've signed a lot of declarations, and we've signed a lot of conventions, and treaties. We break them daily, every single day, and we act like anyone who is questioning that is a RW troll.
I stand against authoritarian systems no matter who is at the head. I stand for civil rights, and international co-operation against torture. I stand against illegal detainment of individuals without judicial review. I stand against the Rendition program, and in favor of transparent government.
It's a shame that my Country does not stand for any of those things.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
temmer
(358 posts)I can tell you that Millions of people in Continental Europe feel violated in their civilan rights.
You just have an US-centric view whereas AI sees "unlawful" from a global perspective.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Here is paragraph from Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080703
This program violates a number of our rights. Smith v. Maryland concerned obtaining the phone records of one suspect and whether that violated the Fourth Amendment. It did not give the government a license to institute an enormous surveillance program and hire outside contractors to do it.
This program is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...the protections specified in the Bill of Rights (including the 4th Amendment that protects us from warrant-less search ) are "Inalienable Rights", bestowed upon us by our creator.
"Inalienable Rights" are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.
If you happen to believe that the US Government or the current administration supersedes those Inalienable Rights, then you will naturally have some problems with this concept.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
allin99
(894 posts)Helps ecuador look justified if they do grant him asylum.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...with a democratic President (Rafael Correa) elected and re-elected by overwhelming popular majorities in transparent, verifiable elections (unlike the elections in the USA).
born 6 April 1963)[1] is the President of the Republic of Ecuador and the former president pro tempore of the Union of South American Nations. An economist educated in Ecuador, Belgium and the United States, he was elected President in late 2006 and took office in January 2007.
In December 2008, he declared Ecuador's national debt illegitimate, based on the argument that it was odious debt contracted by corrupt and despotic prior regimes. He announced that the country would default on over $3 billion worth of bonds; he then pledged to fight creditors in international courts and succeeded in reducing the price of outstanding bonds by more than 60%.[2] He brought Ecuador into the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas in June 2009. To date, Correa’s administration has succeeded in reducing the high levels of poverty, indigence, and unemployment in Ecuador.
Correa was re-elected in 2013 with over 57% of the vote. On 17 February 2013, Correa won his country's presidential election for a third time, defeating Guillermo Lasso, and was elected for another four-year term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa
Ecuador is a member of the United Nations,
and (unlike the USA) is also a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Whatever Ecuador decides to do, it will be justified.
The USA is not the King of the World.
allin99
(894 posts)and then the u.s. has to save face by screwing ecuador in some way, and now it almost saves the u.s. face so they don't have to find a way to openly screw ecuador. lol.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It is only in the last decade or so that Latin America has Stood Up to the USA and said "No More".
The Corporate Powers running the US Government don't need Snowden to have a Hard On for screwing Latin American countries,
and the Obama Administration IS currently a willing partner to that policy of demonizing these emerging transparent, popular democracies,
and supporting the few remaining Right Wing Police States like Colombia.
Contesting the democratic election in Venezuela was stupid from the start.
You would think that a country that pays so much Lip Service to "democracy" would be more supportive of the real thing.
This short sighted policy, once again, left the USA isolated and alone in the World.
After OUR elections in 2000 and 2004,
and the fact that OUR current Black Box Unverifiable elections are OWNED by private Corporations using Computers with "secret" proprietary code makes it laughably hypocritical for the USA to question ANYBODY'S elections, let alone call them illegitimate,
and The WORLD knows this.
This is an ill considered and VERY short sighted foreign policy.
It chases these popular democracies and their emerging markets straight into the welcoming arms of Russia, China, and Iran.
QED
After the outrages of the Bush Administration, aided, abetted, endorsed, and co-signed by the "Centrist" Democrats,
and the continuation and enhancement of some of the WORST Human Rights policies
by the Centrist Obama Administration,
the USA has NO Legitimate Standing to be making demands on the rest of The World where the protection of Basic Human Rights are concerned.
AS long as Guantanamo remains open, and our current administration insists it has the right to send drones to bomb countries that haven't openly attacked us,
and discounting their Civilian Casualties as Collateral Damage,
we just need to keep our mouth shut about Human Rights concerns.
Otherwise, it looks to the rest of the WORLD like we have no SHAME what-so-ever.
indepat
(20,899 posts)King has already spoken and the King's word is the law of the World, plain and simple. 
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)and should be the hero of a grateful nation.
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)I am very glad to hear this.
wundermaus
(1,673 posts)Then Snowden and any other whistle blower (or person) deemed of "illegal activities" of the US Government is protected by international law to seek and obtain asylum in other countries. Any one of us on this discussion board could be kidnapped, disappeared, tortured, and executed "legally" in this country. Think about that for a moment. Any one (including US citizens) suspected of being an "enemy" could be a victim of this outrageous tyranny! You, your spouse, your kids, your friends, your neighbors... Anyone "suspected" or anticipated to be an enemy could be rounded up and indefinitely detailed without charges or a trial. They could be tortured and executed without due process. What does that remind you of? It reminds me of the Dark Ages. It reminds me of Nazi Germany and the death camps. It reminds me of the Killing Fields of Cambodia. It reminds me of my Responsibilities as a Citizen of these United States that we are ALL in very deep shit. And the shit is getting so deep that Our Lady Liberty can not breathe. Now, what do you say? Can't speak? That's because we are in Tyranny up over our heads!
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)while they have an asylum claim under way in any country."
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Ignore for the moment the bluster and hyperbole about activities within the USA, his has deliberately revealed US actions in relation to other countries to those countries - that is treason.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Marshall was speaking to us today even though he spoke in 1979.
This program of surveillance is unconstitutional. It will take time, but eventually the Supreme Court will agree with Marshall and with me.
Whether obtaining the pen register of a suspect in a specific crime is legal which was the issue in Smith v. Maryland is very different from this vast program of collecting metadata on nearly everyone who uses the internet. Marshall's dissent applies to what the Obama administration is doing now. And this program is unconstitutional for the reasons Marshall gives.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think there is a good chance that Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland is such a dissent.
He was a visionary and reached issues in his dissent that did not apply to the narrow facts of Smith v. Maryland but that do, in my opinion, apply to the situation we face now. This massive surveillance program is precisely the kind of use of pen registers that Marshall warned about. And it was this development, the massive surveillance of electronic communications that motivated Marshall, as he explained, to dissent.
Smith v. Maryland does not approve of the massive, invasive program that we now have. This program renders our Bill of Rights or much of it, meaningless.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)this surveillance program is illegal and it does it in an authoritative voice.
Even though the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of this specific program or these specific programs, Marshall point out in logic that cannot be rebutted that these programs of mass surveillance are unconstitutional.
Obtaining the pen register, that is, the phone records of one suspect may not implicate more than the Fourth Amendment, and may be, in specific cases according to the court, justified by the need to accomplish justice.
But as the Obama and Bush administrations' NSAs are implementing this program, it violates a lot more than the Fourth Amendment and is so blatantly unconstitutional that I cannot believe they found some hack just-out-of-school sycophantic "lawyer" to write an opinion that OKs it.
Wow! Wonder what they offered this soul because it seems to me that writing an internal memo that would OK this program could mean a trip to Hell in the afterlife for some poor misguided pawn of the NSA. This program is so blatantly unconstitutional that any first year law student should recognize it. Who in the world do they have working at the NSA?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)saw a particular flaw which the majority of the court did not perceive. Please remember that Stewart did not dissent on the same grounds as Marshall.
It boils down to whether an disclosing information to a third party is covered by the protection against unlawful searches etc, even if that disclosure is to a machine and not to a human. By 5 to 3 the court ruled it was not protected and so the current administration is acting in accordance with that ruling.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't think that case applies to this massive surveillance which collects the metadata on the correspondence and calls of journalists, judges, political parties and candidates and all of the rest of us who express our opinions freely. This is a serious incursion on our First Amendment rights. It chills all of the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment.
I hate to go ad hominem, but I am shocked that anyone would even try to defend this program. What kinds of kooks thought this up? It is inspired by the worst conduct of the Soviet Union's KGB and the NAZI intelligence services. It is far worse even that the STASI.
This program has to go.
Thurgood Marshall was the only one of the justices with the vision to see where the Smith v. Maryland decision would land us. Thank God for Thurgood Marshall.
What in the world does the NSA think it is defending? A bunch of buildings? Our natural resources? No. They are supposed to be defending us. And if they are violating our constitutional AND INNATE HUMAN rights in order to do it, they should go somewhere else. Maybe China would hire them. They seem to have same mentality as the Chinese. They would fit in better there.
And if the Chinese are stealing our ideas and spying on our communications, let's just stop making our products there. Let's just boycott their imports. They need a lesson in human rights. It appears that our government does too.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)what I challenge is the following:
1) the view that the practice is new;
2) that it is automatically unconstitutional;
3) that it can be legislated against, because the massive parts infrastucture of the internet and cellphone networks depends upon the monitoring and use of this information.
If you look at your own post:
In answer to your question about how the program was inspired; I can answer that sprang naturally from a normal government practise, the collection of demographic and other data. It also impinges on the NSA's justification; how do you prevent deadly behaviour from any extremist? The answer they have come up with is that massive data collection will allow prevention or the rapid capture and successful prosecution of such extremists. Prevention is moot, I think there is far too much data for such analysis, but capture and prosecution ex post facto is possible.
Regarding the Chinese spying on ideas and communications ...
... Shame the British did not cease trading with the USA when Edison, Colt et al were so shamelessly ripping off British inventions. Except, of course, it would not have been such a good idea.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of association and of the press. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, here is Wikipedia's brief explanation:
In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling effect that vague or excessively broad laws may have on legitimate speech activity.
An example of the "chilling effect" in Canadian case law can be found in Iorfida v. MacIntyre where the constitutionality of a criminal law prohibiting the publication of literature depicting illicit drug use was challenged. The court found that the law had a "chilling effect" on legitimate forms of expression and could stifle political debate on issues such as the legalization of marijuana.[3] The court noted that it did not adopt the same "chilling effect" analysis used in American law but considered the chilling effect of the law as a part of its own analysis.[4]
Recognition that a law may allow for a chilling effect as a vehicle for political libel or vexatious litigation provides motivation to change such defamation laws, and therefore prevent censorship and the suppression of free speech.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29
Personally, I believe that the Patriot Act from its inception has been overbroad and likely to chill all kinds of political speech and legal activities. This is another serious step in the overbroad, chilling direction. It may take some reiterations of our current Supreme Court and a lot of excesses and public bruises of beloved people before this procedure and the laws that support it are narrowed to achieve their goal -- watching and stopping terrorism.
This program and the Patriot Act are like a two-year-olds version of a haircut. They cut willy-nilly, arbitrarily or everything all at once (poking an eye in the process). This program is way out of bounds. That does not mean that all intelligence and security efforts are wrong in and by the US. But his program is arbitrary and overbroad. And I do not for a minute believe that guys at the level of Snowden are limiting their surveillance to terror suspects.
This program lends itself to easily to political spying. It has to go -- or at least be modified and controlled so that it does not interfere with our privacy and basic rights. Most Americans are law abiding citizens. Spending this kind of money on this program is just absurd on top of being unconsitutional.
Lots of cases regarding free speech are decided on the issue of chilling speech. The government is also prohibited by the Bill of Rights from limiting our other rights or chilling our rights through surveillance programs of this kind.
I remember the McCarthy era. It was absolutely disgusting. I was a child, and even then the injustice of it turned my stomach. This is just as bad.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Whose free speech has it stifled?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in the country.
Have you read the book, "They thought they were free?"
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
When a government begins a surveillance plan it always seems benign, harmless. But ask anyone who lived or traveled in Eastern Europe when it was communist or in the USSR or who lived through the NAZI era in an occupied country what it was like.
I know someone who was a small child in NAZI Germany. Before the end of WWII, the adults around him all praised the Fuhrer and listened reverently to his speeches on the radio.
The very day the war ended, all the adults who had been so awed by Hitler were celebrating: "Finally, he's gone that &$%@&%$."
The day will come when you watch what you say because someone might hear you. You don't feel it now, but inevitably as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, that day when you are no longer free will come.
For some it is already here. For the Walmart employees who were thinking of organizing a union and have been fired.
If you work for a boss who disagrees with your political views, you can lose your job. This kind of surveillance permits bosses to find out about the internet and phone activities of their employees.
It interested me that one of the whistleblowers stated that the surveillance he did which targeted a lot of individuals required him to pull up the records on a lot of lawyers and law firms. Why do you suppose that was? Apparently specific political figures were also targeted. That chills our most basic political functions. The sitting president can obtain intelligence information on the pizza orders of someone running against him -- or far more problematic details of the life of his opponent. That destroys the balance within our separation of powers.
The entire scheme of this surveillance within the US (and I am talking about the metadata and nothing beyond that in this post) is utterly incompatible with our Constitution.
Let me give examples;
I think David Cameron is a jumped up incompetent and I will do all in my power to see him and his band of cronies ousted at the next election I also want to see a good few of those cronies in court.
I think that GCHQ has been monitoring my e-mails and posts on DU and am certain that they have been monitoring yours and I do not care, the wastrels in the security services can go hang.
The NSA is an over reaching group of fools who by outsourcing the vetting of Snowden and other like him should be fired and replaced with more effective managers.
I will expect the assassination squad shortly
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)These children were the victims of drone strikes. And one of the ways that victims are chosen for these drone strikes is through the kind of surveillance -- not necessarily just that kind of surveillance -- that is being talked about here.
People who have traveled in countries in which this kind of surveillance had gone on for years and who tried to engage in conversations about politics or just talk freely know what I am talking about. If you don't know, try reading the book I mentioned. "They thought they were free."
You may be able to order from a library that has interlibrary loans.
You don't feel this now. But you will. This kind of surveillance only means one thing --- government repression. Sooner or later even you will feel it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)issue, it does not deal with the broader First and other Amendment issues. It was a very narrow decision. I think it might hold the first time the Court hears a case raising First Amendment objections to this surveillance program, but I seriously doubt that it will hold long.
This program chills the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech as well as every other First Amendment rights and a few others in the Bill of Rights as well.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)"The US authorities must not prosecute anyone for disclosing information about the government’s human rights violations, Amnesty International said after Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act."
And then he runs off to China and Russia...two of THE biggies for Human Rights Violations! As in BIG violation shit!
AI...STFU.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...are usually human rights violators or their defenders. You're in good company, Soapbox.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are wrong here.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Americans travel through Russia and China all the time.
pam4water
(2,916 posts)at least half the half the way down the slippery slope to a goolag. Have you for gotten that there are over hundred prisoners on hunger strike in gitmo because the conditions are so bad? They been on the strike for coming up on 140 days. That at least 88 of them are cleared for release? That doctors consider force feeding a mentally competent person torture?
" SAMI AL-HAJJ: See, first they take you to hospital, after 30 days. They make some test to make sure that you didn’t eat any things. After that, they start feeding you first in hospital, and they put shackles in our two legs and two hands, also like that, and starting putting the tube inside your nose.
AMY GOODMAN: So they shackle you to a bed.
SAMI AL-HAJJ: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: You’re lying horizontal.
SAMI AL-HAJJ: Yes. This is the first time.
AMY GOODMAN: And they stick a tube up your nose.
SAMI AL-HAJJ: Yes, they put you to tube. And when they put you to tube, they’re using force, not by—like that. They put it quickly. That’s why they go to—sometimes to lungs, not to stomach. And they put—
AMY GOODMAN: So they push with force—
SAMI AL-HAJJ: Yes, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —and then it sometimes goes into your lung—
SAMI AL-HAJJ: Lungs, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —not your stomach.
SAMI AL-HAJJ: Yes. And so, for that, when they start by water, so you start coughing like that.
AMY GOODMAN: Because the water goes into your lungs.
SAMI AL-HAJJ: Yes, yes, yes, yes. And after the first time, they put you also in isolations. They collected all the people who are on hunger strike. And at that time, we are about 20 peoples in that camp. And they have a special chairs. They sit you in the chair, and they put shackles. They put strap heres, one; and the second here; third here. Same like that, it will be like that. And there is a two—two band like that, coming from here."
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/8/exclusive_as_gitmo_turns_11_al
"making cells "freezing cold"... one detainee who was admitted to hospital 10 days ago after a nurse had pushed the tube into his lungs rather than his stomach, causing him later to cough up blood. ... "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/22/us-efforts-guantanamo-hunger-strike
http://www.democracynow.org/topics/guantanamo
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)authoritarian side. I stand with AI.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
timdog44
(1,388 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)
To the detriment of the safety of the United States people. They are doing what I see happening here. Making Snowden the issue, although for the government's purposes it is different. The government will put thousands of the hound sniffers on the job of finding Snowden and while they are doing that, real traitors will be infiltrating and doing damage. That is provided the "spy" community is capable of doing something as simple as locating Snowden. Snowden is on this globe and any "spy" worth his weight should know where he is and find him. He is not the crime. He is a peon. One of a million who decided to come out and say something. Like many in the past have already done. It may be just a fortuitous time for us that it happened now so that we are made aware "again" that all this spying is going on. Fortuitous that maybe enough people are pissed enough to maybe want to do something about it. Snowden is a nobody, he is to be ignored.
MattFromKY
(43 posts)But thankfully they do not dictate how the U.S. conducts its business.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
G_j
(40,367 posts)AMY GOODMAN: Among the protesters outside Fort Meade, Maryland, on Saturday was Sarah Shourd. She was jailed for 14 months in Iran after she and two other Americans, Shane Bauer and now her husband—who is now her husband, and Josh Fattal, were detained by Iranian border forces on July 31st, 2009, for allegedly hiking across the Iraqi border into Iran, which they don’t believe is the case. She spoke to Al Jazeera from the protest.
SARAH SHOURD: My name is Sarah Shourd. I’m an author and an advocate against the use of solitary confinement. And I was held as a political hostage by the Iranian government for 410 days in solitary confinement, along with my now-husband Shane Bauer and my friend Josh Fattal.
Bradley Manning doesn’t deserve to be in prison. And I know what it’s like to sit in a prison cell and know that you don’t deserve to be there. Bradley Manning was held for nine months in extreme conditions of solitary confinement, very similar to my own conditions in Iranian prison. We were both under lockdown 23 hours a day, with—under sensory deprivation. There’s really no way to describe the depth of loneliness. You really just have to get through one day at the time, and every day is a monumental task.
But the fact that people are coming out for Bradley Manning—and I’m sure he knows about it, word will get to him—I’m sure will give him the strength that he needs and help remind him that a lot of people really appreciate what he did for our country and for the world. It’s a level of bravery and heroism that really takes—takes me aback.
---
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-inhumane-treatment-over-wikileaks-soldier-case-2011-01-24
US accused of inhumane treatment over Wikileaks soldier case
Amnesty International has urged the US authorities to alleviate the harsh pre-trial detention conditions of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking information to Wikileaks.
The US army private, 23, has been held for 23 hours a day in a sparsely furnished solitary cell and deprived of a pillow, sheets, and personal possessions since July 2010.
Amnesty International last week wrote to the US Defence secretary, Robert Gates, calling for the restrictions on Bradley Manning to be reviewed. In the same week, the soldier suffered several days of increased restrictions by being temporarily categorised as a "suicide risk".
"We are concerned that the conditions inflicted on Bradley Manning are unnecessarily severe and amount to inhumane treatment by the US authorities," said Susan Lee, Amnesty International’s Programme Director for the Americas.
---
http://mobile.rawstory.com/therawstory/#!/entry/amnesty-international-condemns-inhumane-treatment-of-bradley-manning,514aa81cd7fc7b56707a19b9
.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)
pacalo
(24,721 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)We gone from OMG they are spying on all of us to "human rights violations?"
