British moral authority 'at risk' (UK to question US on Bradley Manning case)

[Ghost Dog]

"Manning's case is important because of the message it sends out to the rest of the world about what kind of treatment the United States thinks is acceptable for people in detention. And, for us, it is important what we say – or what we don't say.

"That matters in places where human rights are not nearly so well observed. People will pay attention in China and in Russia – and in Libya, where we want to be on the side of those fighting for freedom from state repression.

...

"It is my view that some of the greatest damage was caused to British and American efforts in Iraq when the stories of prisoner abuse emerged," she said. "It undermined our moral authority when we needed to explain that we were fighting for a better future for Iraq.

"The United States – and the UK, in the way we respond to actions of the US – needs to preserve that moral authority if we are to have a positive impact on the world and lead by example."

/... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/04/bradley-manning-british-moral-authority

Ann Clwyd, MP (Lab), special envoy to Iraq on human rights under Blair, actual member Foreign Affairs Committee and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, has succeeded in extracting a Foreign Office commitment to, via the British embassy in Washington, "discuss Bradley Manning's detention with the US state department". See link for details.

Press Release Ann Clwyd MP, 18th March 2011: http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/press-release-from-ann-clwyd-mp :

“Bradley Manning calls his conditions “improper treatment” and “unlawful pre-trial punishment”. Human Rights Watch has called upon the US government to “explain the precise reasons behind extremely restrictive and possibly punitive and degrading treatment that Army Private First Class Bradley Manning alleges he has received”. Amnesty International UK has said “Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn’t even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime”.

UK Parliament Early Day Motion 1624 TREATMENT OF BRADLEY MANNING: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1624 :

That this House expresses great concern at the treatment of Private First Class Bradley Manning, currently detained at the US Quantico Marine Base; notes the increasing level of interest and concern in the case in the UK and in particular in Wales; appeals to the US administration to ensure that his detention conditions are humane; and calls on the UK Government to raise the case with the US administration.

See link for signatories and parliamentary process.

[sarge43]

1. 'Moral authority' left the station when the US and UK ginned up

a preemptive strike based on lies. It's a bit late for hand wringing now.

[xchrom]

2. ...

:eyes:

[Bragi]

3. Shows why Assange won't ever be extradited to the US

The US is now a pariah nation when it comes to being able to extradite people to the US for crimes.

This has happened bacuse the US is now not just associated with the use of capital punishment, it is also because of its refusal to accept the norms of due process, and its use of torture and harsh treatment to generate so-called "evidence."

The only upside here is that it points out why Julian Assange won't ever be extradited to the US, no matter how much they torture and abuse poor Bradley Manning to try to force him to implicate Assange.

Standing back, it is amazing to see how far and how quickly the reputation of the the US has fallen. In a decade it has gone from being a (weak but real) beacon of light for human rights, to being a lawless, rogue state.

[riderinthestorm]

4. The UK won't "allow" him to be extradited, but Sweden is a different matter

That's why the US is pushing so hard for him to go to Sweden to face the rape charges there, and get extradited from Sweden. They (and the UK) know that Assange can't be extradited from the UK for appearances sake. He's got to go through Sweden....

[Bragi]

5. Sweden will have the same problem

Sweden, like other countries in the EU, has its own laws and also EU laws that prevent it from acting on evidence obtained through torture.

So if they were to consider extraditing Assange, they would have to do so based on evidence that didn't come from Manning, and I doubt there is or even could be any such evidence.

This is what happens when a country becomes a rogue state...

[msanthrope]

14. No, Sweden won't have any such problem--you can't torture a computer....

Manning was stupid enough, apparently, to leave a forensic trail that resulted in 22 new charges.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/manning-data-mining/

You can bet that the grand jury sitting in the rocket docket isn't going to hear from Mr. Manning. It will hear from computer forensic experts who will document what Mr. Manning did.

And any indictment will be based on that evidence. Which is too bad for Brad, because it makes a plea deal unlikely--he's useless.

[Ghost Dog]

6. Some in the US govt/judicial system have ways of making offers to UK govt/judicial system

they can't easily refuse, it would sometimes seem.

Swedish counterparts may find themselves in a similar boat.

After all, who intercepts more communications, and has more 'inside knowledge' than wikileaks itself?

Edit: But, tell me again, exactly what reasons are given for treating Mr. Manning (and US 'justice') this way?

[msanthrope]

7. You are conflating mummy's MP with the British government, which has a different view---

In direct response to the Bradley Manning's mummy's MP, the Foreign Office expressed--


"In general, we are content that conditions in the US detention system meet international standards and that there is a clear legal process for a detainee to be able to challenge their conditions of detention.

In this case, President Obama himself has said that he has sought and received assurances from the Department of Defence that Private Manning's treatment is "appropriate" and meets US "basic standards". Of course, the United States has an effective and robust judicial system. It is a champion of human rights the world over. However, where crimes are alleged to have occurred they must be investigated. This is currently the case. The fact that we have seen the memo from Private Manning to his commanding officer is evidence that his legal representation is working. We must allow the legal case to follow its course without interference."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0004.htm#11040438000002

Sure, the 'UK' gonna question the Manning case. Sure.

[Bragi]

8. I disagree with your interpretation of this

See the end of the debate, where the government itself acknowledges concerns, and says they will raise them with the US government.

A Conservative MP closes it nicely:

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): May I, from the Government Benches, urge the Minister to convey to our American friends and allies that those of us who believe that, if Private Manning is guilty of the leakage of which he is charged, he did a very terrible thing indeed, are nevertheless convinced that it is fatal to snatch defeat from the jaws of a sort-of victory by focusing attention on the conditions in which he is being held, rather than on the question of the guilt or innocence of his conduct? The word "counter-productive" should be at the forefront of our American allies' minds when they consider how to treat him.

I conclude from this that the UK government is aware of the problems the Obama administration has created for itself by allowing Manning to be abused.

[msanthrope]

10. I think you fail to appreciate the subtlety of the argument--

Dr. Lewis isn't upset by the treatment of Manning, only by how it looks.

The use of the words "counter-productive" suggest that Dr. Lewis is concerned with the p.r. aspects, and not with any real 'abuse.'

[Bragi]

11. I think I understand the subtleness of it all

The UK is basically saying the US has screwed itself by torturing Manning if it really wanted Assange to be extradited based on testimony from Manning.

The message from the MP was clear -- that a government that behaves in an indecent manner can't expect much help even from its friends.

[msanthrope]

13. Assange isn't going to be extradited based on anything Bradley Manning has to say.

If Assange is extradited, it will be based on the forensic trail Manning left on his computer.

Which is too bad for Bradley Manning, because that makes a plea deal unlikely, since he's useless.

Of course, Assange could always assert that the computer was tortured....

[Ghost Dog]

9. "Where crimes are alleged to have occurred they must be investigated."

Indeed.

To stick to the point, then, the allegations that Mr.Manning's treatment/torture may be illegal are being investigated by what competent authority, in what competent jurisdiction, may one ask?

[Bragi]

12. I'm sure none will be sufficient for anti-transparency people

But Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and The UN special rapporteur on torture all have investigations ongoing.