ZNet Articles
Blog PostsAmnesty International "investigating" Bradley Manning's case
By Joe Emersberger at Jan 06, 2011 |
|
I spoke to a pleasant young man from Amnesty-USA today. He told me Amnesty is investigating conflicting claims about the conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention.
How close are they to concluding their investigation? The people with details are in the London office he replies.
Wouldn’t the USA Amnesty people be better situated to investigate something in the USA? The London office handles the research he tells me.
Why hasn’t Bradley Manning been designated a "prisoner of conscience"? Manning may be a "POC" replies the young man, but the London office would have to be sure about his motivations for leaking the information. They would also consider his employment contract. Why would the employment contract be relevant I asked? If he was moved break his contract for moral reasons - as published chat logs reveal - why should anything else matter? He didn’t want to speculate on what the London office was doing.
Calling the London office – as I have a few times - leads me to a polite receptionist who says I should send an email. The emails to London go unanswered.
I asked the young man at Amnesty USA what Amnesty would do if "confirmation" proves very difficult. Why not publicly express concern, as Amnesty does in numerous other cases, where the facts cannot ever be completely verified – and certainly not promptly enough to help the victim? He said the London office may indeed make some kind of "conditional" statement but did not want to speculate when.
Past experience – the July 6, 2005 massacre of Haitians by UN troops – tells me Amnesty will "investigate" indefinitely unless pressured, especially by members and donors. Past experience also shows that Amnesty raises the bar for evidence depending on how the US government views the victims. See Znet "Amnesty International's Track Record in Haiti since 2004";
nother email sent Jan 11,2011
By Emersberger, Joe at Jan 11, 2011 20:54 PM
Dear Amnesty:
Since December, you have been telling people who have complained about your silence over the detention of Bradley Manning that you are "investigating" his plight. Weeks have passed. If you cannot verify his condition by now then you should immediately, and publicly, express grave concern. You should demand that the US government show that Manning is not being tortured.
Below is an editorial by the Los Angeles Times which takes a clear stand on Bradly Manning's case. You should be ashamed that a corporate newspaper has demonstrated a greater sence of urgency about this case than Amnesty. I should not have to explain to a credible human rights group why the treatment of a person who exposed war crimes is extremely important. I should not have to explain why torture is not something to silenly "investigate" - especially in a country like the USA where public pressure can be very effective, in fact decisive, to the fate of the victim.
Joe Emersberger (LA Times editorial below)
Los Angeles Times Editorial
Soldier's inhumane imprisonment
For five months, Pfc. Bradley Manning is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, with no sheets and without exercise, while he awaits trial on charges of providing documents to WikiLeaks. Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of providing documents to WikiLeaks, can't reasonably complain that the military has him in custody. But the conditions under which he is being held at the Marine detention center at Quantico, Va., are so harsh as to suggest he is being punished for conduct of which he hasn't been convicted.
Manning has been charged with unlawfully downloading classified information and transmitting it "with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States." He has been incarcerated at Quantico for five months and has yet to receive the military equivalent of a preliminary hearing.
Nevertheless, Manning is in "maximum custody." Also, under a "Protection of Injury" order, he is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, even though his lawyer says a psychologist has determined he isn't a threat to himself. His lawyer also says that Manning is denied sheets and is unable to exercise in his cell, and that he is not allowed to sleep between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he is made to sit up or stand by his guards.
Some speculate that by treating Manning harshly, officials hope to induce him to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (though Assange would be subject to civilian, not military, justice). But a desire to secure his cooperation isn't a justification for protracted imprisonment under the conditions imposed on Manning.
The Pentagon said that a board will be convened to assess whether Manning suffers from a mental disease that made him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions and whether he is competent to stand trial. That process brings Manning closer to a trial, but it doesn't guarantee that the conditions of his confinement will improve.
Manning's status is periodically reviewed. Ideally, the next review will confirm what seems obvious: that he doesn't pose a threat to himself or others and that his presence at future legal proceedings can be secured with a much more humane confinement. If the review doesn't lead to a change in Manning's treatment, the Pentagon should conduct its own inquiry.
Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions. But regardless of one's view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which he is being held are indefensible.
Reply this comment