E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Wilson / Getty Images file
Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted away from his Article 32 hearing on February 23, 2012 in Fort Meade, Maryland.
Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s 11 months in solitary confinement was “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” the UN chief on torture said Monday, though he stopped short of calling it torture.
Manning, 25, faces 22 counts, including aiding the enemy after he allegedly released classified documents to WikiLeaks. He was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day following his arrest in May 2010 in Iraq, and continuing through his transfer to the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Va.
The confinement, lasting about 11 months, ended upon his transfer to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., on April 20, 2011.
When Juan Mendez, special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, asked Department of Defense officials why Manning was held in such a condition, he was told it was due to the gravity of the crime and for “prevention of harm” – though they did not specify what that meant, citing privacy concerns.
Manning defense's focus on gender identity disorder alarms some
“He hasn't been convicted of any crime yet so … subjecting him to a very long period of solitary confinement on the basis that he might be found guilty of a crime seems to me to be both a violation of his presumption of innocence but also a violation of his right not to be treated cruelly or inhumanely,” Mendez told msnbc.com.
As for the “harm” issue, it would be difficult to assess though it seemed “excessive to protect him from some harm that is kind of indeterminate and ... even fanciful,” particularly since Manning has no history of violence, he added.
The explanations for Manning’s solitary confinement were “insufficient,” according to Mendez. “That's why I reached the conclusion that the United States government was responsible for having inflicted on him cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” he said.
“Those are the words of the convention against torture that the United States has signed and ratified,” he said. “It's one degree less than torture and I'm not in a position to say that anything that happened to Manning amounted to torture, but it seems to me that solitary confinement by itself raises some flags and if it's prolonged, as in this case, it does cross a line.”
Mendez included the conclusions of his investigation of Manning’s case in a Feb. 29 addendum of his report on “torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The Guardian reported Mendez's findings in the case on Monday.
Since Manning’s move, the situation has improved, with him having access to other inmates, for example, Mendez said.
As Manning heads to trial over WikiLeaks, new push for whistleblower protections
In a May 2011 letter from Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson to Mendez, Johnson wrote that “there was considerable misinformation in the public dialogue” about Manning’s confinement at Quantico and that it met legal and regulatory standards.
“Though Private Manning was classified as a maximum custody detainee at Quantico, he occupied the very same type of single-occupancy cell that all other pretrial detainees occupied, regardless of their custody classification,” Johnson said.
A call placed to the Army's Military District of Washington media representatives after hours seeking comment on Mendez's remarks was not immediately returned.
At a court hearing in late February at Fort Meade near Baltimore, Manning declined to enter a plea. Another court session is scheduled for March 15-16, according to The Associated Press.
The Bradley Manning Support Network argues that Manning is a whistleblower, citing online discussions in which he allegedly said he hoped to generate “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms” and wanted “people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Soldier accused in Afghan massacre could get death penalty
- Ex-porn actor fired from school allowed to seek teaching certificate
- Illinois officials upset with FEMA denial of disaster aid
- Hurt on the stairs: Child treated every 6 minutes
- New claims about Saudi who left US before 9/11
- Bison from Canada help repopulate 'Wild West'
Leave a Comment:
Dear UN Torture Chief....
Personally, I don't give a rats a$$ what you or any other low life scum bucket in the UN thinks or believes. You're GUESTS in this country. Please leave and go someplace that cares.
Pvt. Manning is not a whistle blower. He released sensitive classified information that he did not have the authority to. He broke his oath to his country and breached the trust that was put in him via his security clearance. Many would call this a treasonous offense. I have little sympathy for him as he made deliberate choices knowing full well the consequences.
Yep. And one of the consequences is that he should be in solitary confinement so long as he is in military custody for his own protection. I'm guessing that Juan Mendez, who is from Argentina and therefore may well be qualified as an expert on torture, didn't ask Bradley if he wanted to be put in the general population.
He was a soldier. He swore an oath and was entrusted with life-threatening secret info, which he got mad and uploaded to the world, for no reason except that he felt mistreated. Maybe he was mistreated, there is no doubt that happens a lot in the military. But that does not release any soldier from their oath or their duty. He is a despicable traitor to his country and an oath breaker. He put his own personal offense on a higher level of importance than the entire nation. I don't blame them for putting him under tight confinement. He has already demonstrated that he is without honor and has no regard for anyone but himself.
Do you want to know a secret .... ??
"Don't shoot, I know secrets" - unofficial motto of the old Army Security Agency. Starting to suffer from CRS, I used to be able to say it in Russian.
I am so sick of people treating this guy like he is some sort of hero. His imprisonment was MORE than fair considering how many crimes he committed against his own country after taking an oath to defend it.
I concur with the assessment of the UN official. Manning's crime was to reveal the petty, gossipy, realpolitik nature of what's behind the facade of nobility the State Department likes to project. Its my country too and I'd be the first to jump on him if I thought he'd done harm to the country or the principles in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't. I think he's given us an opportunity to push for real integrity but from the nature of the comments here people aren't much interested in that. They'd rather pretend to be noble and patriotic than face the fact of our government's corruption. Oh well, folks can ignore reality all they want, but ignoring the consequences of ignoring reality is something else altogether.
Take a look at him compared to the Soldiers escorting him. How long do you think he would live if he was put in with the general population of prisoners?>
The man has had access to classified and highly sensitive material that could injure thousands of soldiers around the world. He has proven that he can't keep his mouth shut and has not loyalty to the USA. Why would they trust him to have access to visitors?
Trial, Blind Fold & Firing Squad is all a traitor can expect.
Wordweevil, not much sense in arguing your points. It would be like talking to the UN official. Hating US has always been one of the strong points of the UN. I do agree with your last statement and I direct back to you, "ignoring reality is something else all together".
Manning gave classified military information to the enemy during a time of war. There is nothing more clear in history what should happen to him, and he should already be cold and buried. Anyone who supports him should be shot as a collaborator - again, nothing more clear in the history of every nation on earth. Why is there even a question about this?
Pfc. Manning did not endanger current U.S. operations, he did not threaten our troops, the only thing he did was inhibit government action that otherwise would've been concealed by the veil of confidentiality and enlighten the public to the governments espionage, turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them. How can we improve our government if we're not even allowed to know about the problems? The values the declaration of independence indicate this man has a hero rather than a traitor. Are his actions treasonous? Hardly.
He delivered classified information to the enemy. He should have been shot on the spot.
First of all, he didn't deliver classified information to the enemy he delivered it to the People, secondly if you go around shooting everybody accused of something without a second thought everybody will be to afraid to stand up for whats right, and then you open up the doors for dictatorships and totalitarian rule.
@lysanders
Really he just delivered it to the people!!! Dude he gave it to wikileaks who let anyone and everyone including our enemies have access to it. duh.
He never and I mean never tried to control who had access to that information.
Last point, the idiot probably didn't even look at the information that he was releasing to see if it could get someone killed or probably cared what harm it could do to the US.
Firstly I realize the enemy had access to the information but he didnt send it to bin laden he sent it to everyone and the content was sent for the purpose of showing the public unfavorable actions by their goverment. And if his intent was to assist the enemy the cables he sent were very useless compared with other cables he could have leaked. Also where does it even say he didnt look at the cables he sent? You know something we dont?
Good Americans probably died from his treason. Besides in the military we have our own set of laws that are needed to protect the lives of other soldiers. If this had been in the past, say WWII, they would have tried and shot him by now for releasing info that could help the enemy.
He didn't deliver information to the enemy, he delivered it to the public so they wouldn't be ignorant of thier goverments actions. The only danger the information posed was to prevent the government from acting with total secrecy.
Nice twist.
This is none of the UN's business! When are we going to see this President let the UN know that? Okay, I all ready know the answer ... it's never
One more point the Wikileaks incidents started occurring as far back as Oct 2010. Yet, BHO and his Administration has not done one thing to prevent this from happening again. Obviously BHO really has no problem with people releasing info that may or will hurt this nation.
Bugger off!
And look at some of the real shytte that the UN tolerates from its members on a daily basis...
he is a little bitch.It was a PERSONAL vendetta for him.It wasn't about getting the truth out,it was about him being upset about DADT. Not ALL veterans are worth anything.Treason-kill him.And UN-STFU!
Who cares what is was about to him, the truth got out and thats what matters.
In the US,
People (even soldiers) are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Manning has clearly been subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment *before* he has even been found guilty of any crime. Even if he's found guilty of a crime or crimes, the US still has no legal or moral foundation justifying cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of a convicted prisoner.
For those who think that this matter is no business of the United Nations, in April of 1988 Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State John C. Whitehead (on behalf of the president and at the behest of the US Congress) signed the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of charged or convicted prisoners. In transmitting the signed convention to the US Senate, President Reagan wrote in part:
By freely entering into this convention, the US gave its solemn assurance (through it's President and Congress) that it would abide by the provisions of the convention; that freely made choice makes US treatment of prisoners the business of the UN.
Of course, the US has a long history of ceremoniously entering into treaties, conventions, and other binding commitments, only to toss them aside unceremoniously when they become in some slight way inconvenient.
Lune