USA is Torturing Bradley Manning, says UN Chief

After 14 months of investigation and deliberation, the United Nations has officially declared that the USA is guilty of violating the Convention Against Torture.

Bradley Manning, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, has been locked away without charge since May 2010. For 11 months, that meant being in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, under a strict regime of supervision. 

This is in contravention of Articles 1 and 16 of the Convention, which the United States of America signed in 1988 and ratified in 1994.

At the 19th session (PDF) of the UN Human Rights Council, on February 29th 2012, it was noted that the USA have repeatedly hindered the efforts of the Special Rapporteur in its investigation.

Specifically, the UN have been unable to assess the mental and physical well-being of Bradley Manning, as it has been illegally refused permission to hold private, unmonitored conversations with him.

This refusal is also in violation of Article 16 of the Convention. Moreover, it denies due process to ensure that Article 1 is not also being breached, as many commentators fear.

Speaking on behalf of the UN Committee on Torture, Juan Mendez told The Guardian newspaper that the treatment of Manning "constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the Convention against Torture. If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture."

• For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
• This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

In short, no nation can torture someone under any circumstances. This includes both physical and psychological harm, both of the individual and their loved ones.

It's a very wide-reaching article, which also covers torturing someone to gain a confession; and/or to force them to name their accomplices.

The sticking point here is both in the nature of how Bradley Manning is being held; and the suspected reasons why.

The latest UN ruling (PDF) states that 'solitary confinement is a harsh measure which may cause serious psychological and physiological adverse effects on individuals regardless of their specific conditions.' This amounts to torture under international law.

If that wasn't bad enough, then the motivation behind it seals the deal.

It is widely believed that Bradley Manning is being incarcerated in such conditions, without adequate trial nor hearing, to make him talk. He reportedly provided classified military documents to Julian Assange, which were subsequently published on the WikiLeaks website.

The documents and, in particular, video footage embarrassed the US regime, as they provided evidence of human rights abuses in the Middle East. Nothing could be done to stop them going public, but the supposed source was an American citizen. Bradley Manning was quickly arrested and hidden behind closed doors in a military prison.

The problem for US prosecutors is proving that he did anything. Also there is a much bigger goal here. Even if Manning is guilty (and he should be presumed innocent until he is eventually found to be otherwise in a court of law), then he is simply one whistle-blower.

Julian Assange is the real catch. US officials have made no secret of the fact that they want him silenced. Some senior members of the administration have even called for both him and Bradley Manning to be killed.

However, no extradition can be served on Assange (who is an Australian citizen) without proof of a crime committed in America. He maintains that he's merely a journalist, who believes in openness and accountability.

What would help the US case enormously is Bradley Manning confessing something which implicated Julian Assange. The fear is that this is precisely what the torturous incarceration of Manning is about.

This is a view that has been hinted at by the UN's Special Rapporteur on Torture. In an open letter (PDF) to the United States, dated December 30th 2010, Juan Mendez wrote, 'The prolonged period of isolated confinement which Mr Manning has allegedly been subjected to for seven months is believed to have been imposed in an effort to coerce him into 'cooperation' with the authorities, allegedly for the purpose of persuading him to implicate others.'

If it can be established that the USA is definitely torturing Bradley Manning, in order to use his 'evidence' to arrest Julian Assange, then this is a second strike against Article 1 of the Convention.

• Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.

In short, this article places the onus on individual nations to prevent any 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' from happening within their borders. Any allegation of the same has to be fully investigated.

To keep Bradley Manning for so long in solitary confinement was a no-no; but to then refuse to allow the UN inspectors their legal right to see him crossed a serious line.

The United Nations report details every formal and informal request to gain access to the young man. It concludes with the words, 'Regrettably, to date the (US) Government continues to refuse to allow the Special Rapporteur to conduct private, unmonitored, and privileged communications with Private Manning, in accordance with the working methods of his mandate.'

The natural reaction to this state of affairs is to wonder why neutral legal observers have been kept away from him. What are the officials afraid of them hearing or witnessing?

Article 16 was added to the Convention Against Torture for a variety of reasons. The main one is plain common sense. No victim is going to speak freely in the presence of their tormenter, particularly when he or she will be left alone again with them later on.

But there are other motivations too. One of those is to prevent brainwashing, undue intimidation and mental cruelty, by ensuring that those incarcerated have a full understanding of their status, and insight into the reality of their case.  It's a fail-safe against a prisoner being lied to or their rights being misrepresented.

The obstruction of the US government might not be fear of what Bradley Manning will tell them, but what the Special Rapporteur might tell him.

If the Article 1 fears are correct, then the last thing his torturers want is for anything to strengthen his resolve.