UN Official Says US Breaks Rules On Access To Detainee In Torture Probe

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

By John Heilprin, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press

GENEVA - The United Nations' torture investigator on Tuesday accused the United States of violating U.N. rules by refusing him unfettered access to the Army private accused of passing classified documents to WikiLeaks.

Juan Mendez, the U.N.'s special rapporteur for torture, said he can't do his job unless he has unmonitored access to detainees. He said the U.S. military's insistence on monitoring conversations with Bradley Manning "violates long-standing rules" the U.N. follows for visits to inmates.

Manning has been detained by the U.S. military for most of the past year in a case pitting the U.S. government against advocates of transparency in government. The Army private stands accused of being the source of a trove of sensitive documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

He was transferred to a Kansas military prison in April after being confined alone in a cell for 23 hours a day in a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia, for eight months after his arrest. He faces about two dozen charges, including aiding the enemy. That charge can bring the death penalty or life in prison.

Read more: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/un-official-says-us-breaks-rules-access-detainee-083848501.html;_ylt=AhUC9NAsDYcWiPGrVfIKg9ctssB_;_ylu=X3oDMTNpMXF1YjEzBHBrZwMyM2I1MzA0Yy1iZDE2LTM1ODAtOTI4Yy0zODRiZTcwYmRhMjkEcG9zAzMEc2VjA1RvcFN0b3J5IFdvcmxkU0YgVVNTU0YEdmVyA2

[grahamhgreen]

1. We are better than that. Prosecute torture now.

[awoke_in_2003]

67. no, we appear not to be. nt

[jaxx]

2. Does the UN follow all military prisoners thrown in the brig,

or just Manning?

[Hissyspit]

5. Well, then. There you go. That justifies it in this case. You do realize that's the appeal to

hypocrisy fallacy? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Age-old right-wing argument: "The U.S. is above criticism since we're the only ones who ever get criticized." My right-wing dad used to make that argument all the time.

[msanthrope]

10. What justifies prison monitoring is the US Constitution.

Bradley doesn't get an exception no other prisoner in America gets.

Of course, one wonders why Mr. Mendez did not avail himself of the opportunity to interview Mr. Coombs. Mr. Coombs could have pointed Mr. Mendez to Manning's sworn statements regarding his treatment, filed in his Article 138 complaints.

Plenty of info to start an investigation from.

[sabrina 1]

11. Charges of torture change those rules.

The US is not exempt from International Laws on Torture, although you'd never know it over the past number of decades.

[msanthrope]

13. Mendez failed him. He has two sworn statements from Manning regarding his

treatment. He can interview his attorney. He can stll visit Manning.

But it sounds like Mendez is searching for a way out of an investigation he doesn't want.

Wasn't Kucinich going to investigate, too?

[sabrina 1]

21. What are they afraid of? If there is nothing to worry about

they would not refuse to allow him to do his job. But in a way, they have done it for him. By their blocking him from having an unmonitored visit with Manning, the consensus is that Manning has been tortured.

It sounds like Mendez was prevented from verifying or dismissing the charges. And it sounds like the US is afraid of what he might find out. And this is why the US has lost its moral authority around the world, and why such Human Rights abusers as China, can attack the US when we have the gall to point fingers at THEM, with a long list of Human Rights abuses by the US, including our refusal to allow Mendez to do his job. And why the US cannot counter those charges.

Attempting to defend this is a waste of time. People around the world will see this as par for the course for this country now. Nothing iow, has changed.

I hope one day this country can be restored to the rule of law. I had hoped it would be already in progress, but it looks like we will have to wait a lot longer before that happens.

[msanthrope]

72. How was Mendez prevented from interviewing Manning's attorney or reading the sworn

statements on the attorney's website?

[Hissyspit]

12. And none of that has anything to do with what we were talking about.

[msanthrope]

14. Mendez can stll investigate--but it seems he wants to punt this.

So he can fail to do his job, and blame the US...bully for him.

[No Elephants]

25. Assume only Manning. And? Following even one prisoner re: torture is better than

following none.

Jaysus!

[indepat]

3. Surely the US, a champion of the rule of law and international justice, would never break a rule

:patriot:

[JDPriestly]

4. K&R

Obama brags about how he stopped the torture practices. Well, then why don't the international inspectors have free access to Manning? There is nothing to hide, is there, President Obama?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

6. why should they make an exception in the rules for manning? Is he more special then others? n/t

Unless I'm wrong they can visit Manning as long as they follow the normal rules for visitors

[Auntie Bush]

7. The rules aren't normal for Manning. His will be monitored so he isn't free to

discuss his situation.

[msanthrope]

9. Every single prisoner in America is subject to visit monitoring.

The only exceptions are your clergy, and your attorney.

This is clearly posted in every jail and prison in America.

Bradley doesn't get an exception from the rules.

[Bragi]

31. And why is that a good thing?

Seems to me that, in practice, this restriction means that there cannot be any a serious investigation of possible human rights abuses in U.S. prisons.

I see how that works for the people in charge of the growing U.S police state, and those who support them, but perhaps you could explain how any progressive-minded person could support this?

[JDPriestly]

22. Because they are investigating human rights issues. That is why

they should have special access to Manning. Allegations of abuse have been made. It is only to be expected that those allegations should be investigated without any restrictions on the contact between the investigators and the alleged victim of the abuse.

The investigators should of course be people who are above reproach.

[No Elephants]

27. "Unless I'm wrong?" And UN rules are not special rules for Manning., unless

Juan Mendez is lying. Has anyone claimed he's lying?


"Juan Mendez, the U.N.'s special rapporteur for torture, said he can't do his job unless he has unmonitored access to detainees. He said the U.S. military's insistence on monitoring conversations with Bradley Manning "violates long-standing rules" the U.N. follows for visits to inmates."

If they are long standing UN rules, we agreed to abide by them and probably also helped develop them.

[No Elephants]

26. Someone better tell Amnesty International that Obama stopped torture.

[msanthrope]

8. UN 'rules' don't trump our Constitution. Mendez took the easy way out....

He gets to fold an investigation he knows has no merit, and he saves face.

And Manning's supporters won't ever ask why Mr. Mendez didn't interview Mr. Manning's attorney. After all, that wouldn't be subject to monitoring.

Manning himself filed an original and amended 138 complaints. So Mendez has Manning's sworn, unmonitored statement as to his treatment. Plenty to do an investigation from.


http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/01/article-138-complaint.html

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/article-138-complaint.html

[EFerrari]

15. That's right, international law and treaties are for chumps.

USA, USA!!!!

[msanthrope]

16. Perhaps you can cite the international law or treaty you speak of?

Which international law or treaty gives Bradley Manning the right to have unmonitored visits?

[EFerrari]

20. The UN Convention Against Torture states that he is to be protected

from ill treatment or intimidation as a consequence of the inquiry.

And of course, he is not asking for unmonitored visits. The UN Special Rapporteur has asked for an unmonitored interview for the purposes of his investigation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. And how does apply the standard visitation rules constitute ill treatment or intimidation?

[No Elephants]

30. Whether it does or not, it violates UN rules, under which we agreed to abide.

Or so alleges the U.N.'s special rapporteur for torture. If he is right about the rule violation, we are breaking our obligation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. UN policies are not the same as treaties

Not clear there is an obligation. Additionally there are no special restrictions being placed upon Mendez either.

[EFerrari]

38. Because it gives his jailors the opportunity to listen to his report

which can then be used against him.

Obviously.

[Bragi]

51. That's easy to answer

You cannot have a proper independent investigation of human rights abuses in any prison unless you can interview prisoners without monitoring by the incarcerating authorities.

You are apparently fine with the idea of not allowing proper investigations of human rights abuses in prisons, but most progressive-minded people are not fine with this.

[hack89]

34. The US never ratified the optional protocol that allows the UN to investigate

we can't violate something we never ratified.

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

[EFerrari]

37. That isn't the optional protocol, that is the one we signed.

[hack89]

43. The one that give countries the right to opt out of an investigation

by the Committee Against Torture? That treaty?

[No Elephants]

29. The same agreement that governs our membership in the UN.

I'm even guessing we played a large role in writing the rules, as well as agreeing to abide by them.

[hack89]

36. You would be wrong

The UN Convention against torture was ratified by the US. The Optional Protocol to that convention that set up a system of inspection was not ratified by the US.

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

We are not breaking international law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Do the treaties specify unmonitored vists?

As I understand it that is a policy/expectation, but not in the governing documents

[EFerrari]

18. So now we're parsing the expectations of the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture?

Really?

That's shameful.

[sabrina 1]

19. Yes, it is, shameful!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Not at all, we are rejecting false claims being made by some that the US is in violation of intl law

No law is being violated and Mendez is being accorded the same access that everyone else gets. Mendez's desires do not carry any weight. As has been pointed out he is also not taking advantage of other sources that are available to him.

This seems more like PR oriented whining vice a valid issue.

[EFerrari]

39. The Obama adminstration has been in violation of the Un Convention on Torture

from the moment he refused to investigate the Bush administration.

But I love the way some people are able to rationalize anything.

[hack89]

47. Would you prefer Mendez investigate Obama?

why is he wasting his time on the little fish? Or do you view this as the first step in a process that puts Obama in a Hague jail cell?

[EFerrari]

49. Mendez is "wasting his time" because every humanitarian organization of note

wrote to him and asked him to investigate this case.

And for the record, yes, I expect Barack Obama to do better than George Bush did.

[hack89]

53. So?

that doesn't magically give him the powers to interfere in American domestic issues.

[No Elephants]

32. The OP says "long standing UN rules." Not treaty, not policy and not expectation.

[No Elephants]

28. To what specific violation of the U.S. Cconstitution by UN rules are you referring?

[hack89]

35. The US never ratified the optional protocol that allows the UN to investigate US prisoners

so the UN can pack sand.

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

[EFerrari]

40. The convention we did sign covers it but well done arguing against

investigating prisoner abuse. They could have used you at Abu Graib.

[Bragi]

41. That is the point: to stop human rights investigations

By having a ban on unmonitored visits, this pretty well makes it impossible for any independent party to properly investigate possible human rights abuses in prisons.

So I can see why this is supported by people in charge of the growing U.S police state, and their supporters, but I fail to see why this ban would be supported by any progressive-minded person.

[hack89]

45. One reason to oppose it is to limit UN powers

they are not a progressive organization, nor are they neutral and unbiased.

[Bragi]

50. Not really

Name me one progressive thinker or organization that is anti-UN?

[hack89]

52. You miss my point

Many progressives embrace the UN because they have this fuzzy notion of a UN infused with progressive, western values (think European) acting as both a counter and a cure for American exceptionalism and "imperialism".

The one thing they consistently overlook is that liberal, secular countries somewhat scarce in the UN and are certainly outnumbered by non-liberal, non-progressive countries. The UN not only welcomes every despot and authoritarian regime in the world, it actually gives them seats on important committees like, lets see ... the Human Rights Council.

You have no problem with the UN interfering with our rights when it is an issue that fits your agenda. Would you be equally willing to have your complaint about gay rights investigated by a Iranian judge? Do you trust a Saudi judge on gender equality? A Chinese judge on freedom of speech?

Progressives embrace the UN because America does not consistently reflect their values but they feel relatively powerless to do anything about it. However, because the US is bad does not make the UN automatically good.

[Bragi]

54. You wrote:

The one thing they consistently overlook is that liberal, secular countries somewhat scarce in the UN and are certainly outnumbered by non-liberal, non-progressive countries.

The reason for this is that non-progressive countries outnumber progressive ones in the real world. Since the UN membership includes every country, its membership therefore reflects this reality.

As much as I'd like to exclude countries I don't like from the UN, I know this would be a bad idea, because what you'd end up with would not be a global organization representing everyone. And maybe my list of admitted counties would be different than yours.

As for UN chairs of bodies being from countries we don't like, I presume you know that countries usually take turns chairing UN meetings in alphabetical order, and that these chairs have no real power over anything.

The rabidly anti-UN U.S right-wing fails to note these points in their rants, but I think they are relevant here.

[hack89]

55. There are many reasons why UN influence in domestic US issues should be limited

The only thing that protects my freedoms is the Constitution and my active participation in the political process.

The UN does serve some valid purposes - but they are not a progressive organization nor do they necessarily have my best interest in mind.

[hack89]

42. You must have missed this part

the part where the UN gives us the right to tell them to pack sand.

International implementation

As the effectiveness of the Torture Convention, like that of many other human rights
conventions, would depend to a large extent on the supervision system, the implementation
at the international level gave rise to extensive discussions. It was finally decided that a
Committee against Torture would be set up (article 17 of the Torture Convention) with the
following tasks:

(i) To receive, study and comment on periodic reports from the States parties on the
measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under the Convention
(article 19);
(ii) To initiate an investigation when there is reliable information which appears to
contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practiced in the
territory of a State party (article 20);
(iii) To receive and examine complaints by one State party of violations of the
Convention by another State party (article 21); and
(iv) To receive and examine applications by individuals claiming to be victims of a
violation of the Convention by a State party (article 22).

However, the competences of the Committee against Torture under (ii), (iii) and (iv) were
not made compulsory but apply with the following modifications:

– A State party may “opt out” and declare that it does not recognize the
Committee’s competence to initiate investigations under article 20 (article 28);
– The Committee’s competence to examine inter-State complaints only applies
when a State party has specifically recognized this competence (article 21);
– The Committee’s competence to examine applications by individuals only
applies when a State party has specifically recognized this competence (article
22).

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp_e.pdf



I will also resists the expansion of UN powers - the number of people on DU that somehow think they are a progressive organization never ceases to amaze me.

[EFerrari]

44. So are you claiming that the Obama administration has opted out?

LOL

[hack89]

46. They told them to pack sand - sounds like they opted out of that particular article. nt

[buckrogers1965]

48. The UN is considered to be a protecting power under the geneva convention.

PART VI

EXECUTION OF THE CONVENTION

SECTION I

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 126


They shall be able to interview the prisoners, and in particular the prisoners' representatives, without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter.

[hack89]

56. No it is not

The term protecting power has a specific meaning under these Conventions. A protecting power is a state that is not taking part in the armed conflict, but that has agreed to look after the interests of a state that is a party to the conflict. The protecting power is a mediator enabling the flow of communication between the parties to the conflict. The protecting power also monitors implementation of these Conventions, such as by visiting the zone of conflict and prisoners of war. The protecting power must act as an advocate for prisoners, the wounded, and civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Protecting_powers

1. Manning is not a prisoner of war
2. There are no parties to a conflict - this is a purely domestic issue.
3. What other country's interests is the UN looking out for? - this is a purely domestic issue.

[buckrogers1965]

57. Manning is a british citizen.

He is a prisoner of war

Why do you think they are holding him with no charges?

[hack89]

58. You cannot enlist in the US army as a dual citizen

he had to renounce his British citizenship.

(9) Applicants who possess dual citizenship cannot enlist as both an alien and a citizen. They must choose and declare
citizenship of one country and renounce the other.

We know that he did not renounce his US citizenship

(2) Immigrant aliens who have been lawfully and permanently admitted to the United States are eligible for enlistment,
however they may not enlist in an MOS requiring a security clearance.

He was an intelligence specialist with a security clearance.

http://tubberville.com/FY07ECM.pdf


Here is his first charge sheet:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/charge-sheet-html

Here is his second charge sheet

http://news.cnet.com/2300-31921_3-10006905.html

[buckrogers1965]

60. Evidently you can.

Because his British mom had the British government inquire about him being tortured, just before we stopped torturing him.

You do not have to be a citizen of the USA to be in the US Army.

He is a British citizen, that is why the British government intervened and that is why the UN is investigating.

[hack89]

61. He may still a British citizen in the eyes of the British government

but that is irrelevant to us. As far as we are concerned, when he formally renounced his British citizenship he became solely a US citizen.

The Brits knew this but made the inquiry because his mom was British and the wanted to avoid domestic political mess.

You don't have to be an American citizen to join the army - that is true. Also irrelevant. You cannot be a DUAL citizen and be in the Army. He was born with American citizenship - he had to choose and renounce one country to join the Army. Since you have to be an American citizen to hold the security clearance he had, it is clear he renounced his British citizenship.

[hack89]

62. Here is an interesting tidbit of international law that may interest you

Under international law, the Master Nationality Rule states that a State may not give diplomatic protection to one of its nationals in a country where the person also holds citizenship. For example, a person who is both British and American cannot receive diplomatic help from a British Consul in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#Automatic_loss_of_British_nationality


When we look at the Master Nationality Rule we find:

The United Kingdom Home Office explains:

“ Commonly known as the "Master Nationality Rule", the practical effect of this Article is that where a person is a national of, for example, two States (A and B), and is in the territory of State A, then State B has no right to claim that person as its national or to intervene on that person's behalf. Such a person who goes into the territory of a third state may be treated as a national of either A or B – it does not normally matter which one, except, for example, where the courts of the third state have to adjudicate upon matters relating to that person's status and the relevant laws depend on the person's nationality. In such cases, it is necessary to choose an effective nationality (i.e. one of the two nationalities is selected as effective for the purposes of the third state).<1>

In terms of practical effect, it means that when a dual citizen is in the country of one of his two nationalities, that country has the right to treat that person as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of that country. This includes the right to impose military service obligations, or to require an exit permit to leave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Nationality_Rule

[buckrogers1965]

63. Regarless of any of that.

The British government did intervene and immediately we stopped torturing him. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting. Probably words were spoken that would have peel paint off the walls.

[hack89]

64. Are you kidding?

A British embassy official met with someone in the State Department. Nothing was demanded and nothing was promised. It was the typical diplomatic kabuki dance whereby the US government allowed the Brits to say they "did something".

On 29th March a senior official in the British Embassy in Washington called his counterpart in the US State Department. He handed over a copy of the “uncorrected evidence” of Ann Clwyd’s exchange with William Hague at the Foreign Affairs Committee, together with a copy of Early Day Motion 1624. This official drew attention to the fact that this debate in the UK now existed at the level of Parliamentary interest.

Bellingham notes that the representative of the US State Department took note of the above and agreed to take these concerns forward. This shows, said Bellingham, how “the strength of our relationship empowers us to raise difficult issues.”

http://blog.ukfriendsofbradleymanning.org/2011/04/05/today-in-parliament-bradley-mannings-citizenship-status-confirmed/


On edit: and he wasn't moved to a different prison until nearly a month after this meeting. It makes no real difference anyway - nothing the British can do will keep Manning from a long prison term. Everyone knows that so it allows the US to toss the Brits a bone or two to let them save domestic political face.

[buckrogers1965]

65. Not kidding.

Are you kidding?

[hack89]

66. Are you saying that Manning won't be in prison for a very long time?

it doesn't seem to matter what the UN or the British government has to say, does it?

[buckrogers1965]

68. I'm saying that if we don't stop torturing people

That the rest of the countries on this planet will make us stop.

[hack89]

70. Now you are kidding

If the rest of the world can turn a blind eye to North Korea, The Congo, Somalia, Syria, Iran and every other pissant dictatorship that imprisons, tortures and kills its own people, I really don't think we have any thing to worry about. Besides, just how do you think they can stop us?

[buckrogers1965]

71. Easy.

China dumps all the dollars they hold onto the open market and stops giving us uniforms, bullets and electronics. We immediately collapse in the worst and quickest economic failure in the history of the world and China has defeated us without firing a single bullet.

Then the rest of the world picks at the corpse of America at their leisure.

[hack89]

74. So China commits suicide? That is your solution?

We are the largest consumer economy in the world. Our collapse means no revenue for the Chinese government and no jobs for millions of Chinese - resulting in the collapse their economy and society. The collapse of the global economy as you suggests all means that there would be no one left to pick up the slack.

China depends on exports for keep their people fed and docile - the deal the Communist party made with their people was that we will give you every economic opportunity (ie capitalism) as long they stay out of politics. They would never do what you suggest - there would be civil war. And why would they care about torture that much - don't you think they do it all the time?

[buckrogers1965]

75. Oh please.

China is a totalitarian state with a planned economy. They just round up a couple of million people and execute them and everything is the same as it has ever been for them.

[msanthrope]

73. Not according to his attorney, he's not. nt

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[lovuian]

69. Its obvious we have tortured Manning

or we would let the investigator in and give him access
I don't know why Obama went there