Lessons from Manning's transfer out of Quantico

[MNBrewer]

The Obama administrations DISGRACEFUL behavior during this entire event should not be forgotten.

<http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/04/20/manning>

[midnight]

1. Article says that even Bush allowed Al Qaeda unmonitored visits...

However, Obama refused U.N. access to unmonitored visits with Bradely Manning. This doesn't sound right.

[MNBrewer]

2. Hoooooooooope! Chaaaaaaaaaaange!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

The Bush Admin did allow the Red Cross in...however the Red Cross were not allowed to dislcose info.

So basically, the Bush admin didn't really do anything that was different here. It may have been surprised but no information was given to the public. And I do not believe the UN is under any such obligation or would adhere to such a point. So the supervision would be a checked system. So whatever Greenwald understood has a special nuance that he decides not to shed light on.

[vaberella]

3. In response to your article...this article explains the reasons behind the UN not seeing Manning.

The US has it's own laws that have to be respected and meet in order to have things done. The UN doesn't have full jurisdiction over our laws. This article suggests that our laws permit UN meeting with Manning as long as there is supervision, only Manning's lawyer has a right to confidential meetings. However, the UN said that, the monitoring would be counter to their own charter since it must be individual. And this is why the UN were not able to see Manning. So it they were not rejected because of some underhanded reason. They were rejected because they're regulations couldn't comply with our regulations. However you're painting this as some nefarious plot to mistreat and defend torture or defend inhumane practices which it is not.

His transfer to Leavenworth comes a bit more than a week after a U.N. torture investigator complained that he was denied a request to make an unmonitored visit to Manning. Pentagon officials said he could meet with Manning, but it is customary to give only the detainee’s lawyer confidential visits. The U.N. official, Juan Mendez, said a monitored conversation would be counter to the practice of his U.N. mandate.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/whats_going_on_wikileaks_suspe.html

[Vattel]

5. Reading comprehension check.

The quote you offer says that Pentagon officials said that "it is customary to give only the detainee's lawyer confidential visits." You say that the "article suggests that our laws permit UN meeting with Manning as long as there is supervision, only Manning's lawyer has a right to confidential meetings." How did you arrive at the conclusion that a confidential meeting with a UN representative would be unlawful as opposed to merely being contrary to what is customary?

[vaberella]

6. Hmm....Thank you for the check.

Be that as it may...their regulations (since it would have to be something of that nature--something binding) would only permit confidential meetings with a lawyer and the UN needs private meetings.

In any event, this idea that the private meetings were something fundamental in the Bush admin is false, considering the Red Cross cannot disclose ANY of it's findings. And the UN is not under any such obligation. I'm a bit unnerved by Greenwald's manipulation of the topic and Bush comparison.

Not to mention in my opinion the situation Manning is in is fundamentally different in many ways to the Guantanamo detainees.

[Vattel]

7. Maybe

there are regulations that would be violated by allowing a confidential meeting with a UN representative--I really don't know--but you have presented no evidence that such regulations exist. Your attempt to suggest that Greenwald is somehow being unfair by pointing out that even Bush allowed unmonitored meetings between Red Cross representatives and Guantanamo detainees seems a bit desperate. The fact that Bush allowed such meetings is quite relevant to assessing the significance of the current refusal to allow unmonitored meetings between UN representatives and Manning.

[msanthrope]

8. It's called equal protection.

Why does Manning get special unmonitored visits that no one else gets?

[Vattel]

10. Maybe.

It's not obvious that allowing Manning such a visit would violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but I'm open to any argument you might have that it would. (Sorry, I can't just take your word for it.)

[msanthrope]

11. If Manning is allowed to determine who gets privilege, why shouldn't every other prisoner in

America get that same right? Why does Manning get to determine the status of his visitors, and not the prison?

It would violate equal protection because it would allow Manning a right that no other prisoner in America has.

Note something--not a single suggested visitor is on official government business. Even DK still hasn't opened an official government inquiry--and there's a reason why.

[Vattel]

12. Maybe I'm missing something, but

Manning's case is very special partly because a representative of the UN would like to investigate his treatment. So why not let the special circumstances warrant an exception to the customary practice?

[msanthrope]

15. Nothing prevents the representative from investigating.

I was unaware that the UN rep was unable to speak with Manning's attorney?

Unable to read the 138 filings?

In criminal law, the 'special' defendant doesn't get special rights.

The real question I have is why Kucinich hasn't tried to open an actual investigation, but instead just makes public letters (fundraising appeals.)

[Vattel]

4. I'm glad it looks like his treatment will improve.

I wonder who ordered the transfer.

[Mimosa]

13. Who would un-rec this news report?

BTW, Manning's attorney wasn't notified!

Excerpt:

A Pentagon official yesterday leaked word to the Associated Press that accused WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning was being transferred out of the Quantico Marine brig where he has been held under inhumane conditions for 10 months, and moved to the Army's prison facility in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. The Pentagon did not even bother to notify Manning's lawyer of the transfer; he had to learn of it through the media leak. As most media reports on this transfer note, the move takes place "in the wake of international criticism about his treatment." In particular, the AP story explains:

Manning's move to a new detention center comes about a week after a U.N. torture investigator complained that he was denied a request to make an unmonitored visit to Manning. . . . Two days later, a committee of Germany's parliament protested about Manning's treatment to the White House. And Amnesty International has said Manning's treatment may violate his human rights .

[Vattel]

14. Posts that discuss abuses of executive power

often end up with zero recs. Du is, on the whole, a remarkably conservative site since Obama took office.

[Mimosa]

16. Imagine the plight of an attorney who isn't notified of client's relocation.

Vattel, I may have jumped 'too soon' on another topic.

I am very guarded about what the RIGHT is doing.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Yawn. Manning's father disagrees with all this media whoredom "torture" bullshit stirring.

Now that Manning is at Leavenworth, what's the BFD? :eyes:

[Vattel]

18. Yes, by all means, let's look forward.

[truth2power]

19. Manning knows something that CIC Obama doesn't want out there...

Just my spidey sense. Nothing more. But I've learned to trust my inner voice.