align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfullheartglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

The London Expat American Meetup Group Message Board › Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Afghanistan - US Citizen in Guantanamo

Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Afghanistan - US Citizen in Guantanamo

Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,592


Exclusive: David House on Bradley Manning, Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury, and U.S. Surveillance
http://www.democracyn...­
http://www.rjgallaghe...­



Con......

At the time, there was no media attention surrounding Bradley Manning. I mean, this was September 2010. From September to December, all the media attention was surrounding Julian Assange or WikiLeaks. And so, it was very surprising to me, in December 2010, when all of a sudden the media attention scaled up, and then the question became, "Well, how did you get on the visitors list?" The answer for a time was anyone could be put on the list; it’s just that, for some reason, no one was applying.



AMY GOODMAN: Does it make you afraid, for yourself?
DAVID HOUSE In what regard?
AMY GOODMAN: The possibility of you being imprisoned like this.
DAVID HOUSE Not really. I think that we’re well past the point where people should be afraid. I think that everyone’s kind of been living under this culture of fear in the States for some time now, been manifesting itself in different ways, most recently in—as citizens giving up our power, ceding our power, to a state that is growing very large and that is threatening to take away even more of our power, if we do not listen to it, if we do not kind of bow down and say, "OK, that’s fine."
This culture of fear is something that must be combated against. And the only way to do that is to take a very firm, principled stand as a U.S. citizen and say, "No, as a democracy, the citizens have rights, and we will fight to defend those rights." I think that if what I’m doing is activism, I have nothing to worry about. And if what I’m doing is called civil disobedience, then I feel that civil disobedience actually does restore some measure of dignity to the people, and thus, in times like this, may be necessary. So, am I afraid? No, not at all. And if I am afraid, it takes managing that fear to move forward. And I would encourage every U.S. citizen to manage their fears and do what they can to take a firm, principled stand here, because everyone is an activist now.
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,593


Exclusive: David House on Bradley Manning, Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury, and U.S. Surveillance
http://www.democracyn...­
http://www.rjgallaghe...­



Con......

At the time, there was no media attention surrounding Bradley Manning. I mean, this was September 2010. From September to December, all the media attention was surrounding Julian Assange or WikiLeaks. And so, it was very surprising to me, in December 2010, when all of a sudden the media attention scaled up, and then the question became, "Well, how did you get on the visitors list?" The answer for a time was anyone could be put on the list; it’s just that, for some reason, no one was applying.



AMY GOODMAN: What has most surprised you over this last year?
DAVID HOUSE How frantic and—what’s the word I’m looking for?—incompetent the U.S. government has been in prosecuting this investigation. Julian Assange said yesterday during the event that silence from powerful institutions is a show of strength, so if you step over ants and you crush a few of them, and the ants protest, you don’t feel the need to address the ants, you keep moving. In this circumstance, we’ve seen the U.S. government do everything it can to kind of tell the media, "No, no, no, we’re the good guys," while at the same time, in the background, torturing Bradley Manning, seizing the computers of activists, and doing all manner of horrible atrocities, to try to cover up the disclosures from WikiLeaks. I think this shows that the institutions that are perpetrating these crimes are in fact weak and that we, as in the U.S. people, have the responsibility to put some pressure on these institutions to encourage them to change their policies and to take a firm stand, because the U.S. government’s ham-fisted investigation shows that it is weak in its prosecution of this affair and that if we push hard enough, things will change.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think WikiLeaks has changed the world?
DAVID HOUSE Oh, definitely. I mean, no one will say that we do not live in a post-WikiLeaks world. There was this realization last December, after all this stuff was released, that, you know, "Oh, my god, things are changed forever," for better or for worse. And I think that we are a world walking into a connected age. We are a people, as a species, who have never dealt with this degree of connectedness before in our society. And this is going to do very interesting things, not just to the economic sphere, which it already has, but also to the political sphere, as well. And WikiLeaks is one of the first steps in this process. So, I don’t know. I think that, yes, WikiLeaks has changed the world, but it’s more part of this organic process of changing the world. Technology is taking us to a level we’ve never been at before, and WikiLeaks is part of this. And our democracy will benefit from it.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell me anything about your family?
DAVID HOUSE Sure. So, my grandfather was a detective in Birmingham, Alabama, during the civil rights events happening in the 1960s, and he was one of the only King supporter on the department in the Birmingham Police Department. He was a detective his whole life. And he actually gave the notebooks to King that King used to write Letters from the Birmingham Jail. So my grandfather said that King initially was using the margins of his newspaper to write an essay, and my grandfather noticed this, went out to a drugstore and bought him a notebook, came back and gave it to him to use, that he would later use to write the Letters from Birmingham Jail. My grandfather’s job on the police department was to essentially make sure that the Klan, the Ku Klux Klan, was not hurting King supporters in and around the Birmingham area and ensure that peace was being kept to a very large degree.
And I’ve read through my grandfather’s journals, and it’s very interesting, actually, seeing this principled man who grew up in the middle of Alabama during the civil rights era who actually undergoes this kind of mental transformation while he’s on the department, saying that when King said, "Justice delayed is justice denied," that was very pivotal for him. It was a phrase that caught like fire amongst him and others in the department and really started their support for King in the civil rights era. So, I wear my grandfather’s ring as a reminder to me what people can do when they take a very principled stand. I feel that my grandfather’s actions in the police department were a symbol for others to be King supporters or to treat those more fairly that were imprisoned during the civil rights era. And I hope that I can live up to those principles in my everyday life as a U.S. citizen.
AMY GOODMAN: The Birmingham church bombing?
DAVID HOUSE Yes. My grandfather was the lead investigator in the Birmingham church bombing that killed the four young girls in Birmingham, Alabama. It was a racially motivated bombing. The Klan had planted dynamite under the steps of a Baptist church, and they had thought that they were going to blow up an empty church, but there were four young girls practicing for a choir inside the church that were killed. This was very—had a very huge impact on my grandfather and others in the department.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, they couldn’t have thought they weren’t going to hurt anyone, because it went off Sunday morning.
DAVID HOUSE Oh, really? Interestingly enough. OK, interesting. The line that was in the U.S.—that was in the Alabama media at the time, as I understand it, was that they thought they wouldn’t hurt anyone, right? But there again, the Klan had a very large influence in Alabama during this time. And reading through my grandfather’s notes and all the papers about the case that our family has access to, it’s very interesting actually seeing him go through this investigation. The way he talks about the affairs happening between the Klan and King supporters in the Birmingham area, you get the feeling that it was a city on the brink. It was a city on edge, almost like a war zone, and things ready to break out at any time. And it’s interesting—I can’t imagine what it would have been like to have been in his shoes during that time and actually be a King supporter in the middle of all this, behind enemy lines, as it were.
AMY GOODMAN: Did he have many friends in the Birmingham Police Department?
DAVID HOUSE Oh, he did. He was there for many, many years.
AMY GOODMAN: What was his name?
DAVID HOUSE Maurice House. Maurice House was his name. And I’m David Maurice House, named after him. But yeah, he was a very principled man. He died when I was very young. So I probably projected some of my idealism onto him, obviously, as people tend to do, but it’s been very remarkable reading his stories and actually coming to know him and his principles just through that. It’s been very nice.
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,594


Exclusive: David House on Bradley Manning, Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury, and U.S. Surveillance
http://www.democracyn...­
http://www.rjgallaghe...­



Con......

At the time, there was no media attention surrounding Bradley Manning. I mean, this was September 2010. From September to December, all the media attention was surrounding Julian Assange or WikiLeaks. And so, it was very surprising to me, in December 2010, when all of a sudden the media attention scaled up, and then the question became, "Well, how did you get on the visitors list?" The answer for a time was anyone could be put on the list; it’s just that, for some reason, no one was applying.



DAVID HOUSE But he really gave me the—he was the one who instilled in me the idea that principles are very important for someone to live their life, you know, because you’re—
AMY GOODMAN: How old were you when he—
DAVID HOUSE When he died? I was 12, I think. But, I mean, he really taught me that, without principles, you don’t really have a leg to stand on, right? And in our government now, you see people—a complete abdication of principles, whatever those principles may be.
AMY GOODMAN: David House, co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network, speaking to us in London, England.

We speak out because we love our country~ 1770's, 1850's, 1960's and now!
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,596
"The poor tell us who we are,
The prophets tell us who we could be,
So we hide the poor,
And kill the prophets."

Phil Berrigan




Politics Today And More Reasons For An American Revolution!
They Will Execute Bradley Manning Over My Dead Body
http://lecafpolitique...­































[/img]
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,597


Assange challenges extradition
http://uk.news.yahoo....­
http://yfrog.com/kjsn...­



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has arrived at the High Court for an appeal against being extradited to Sweden over sexual assault allegations.

Assange is challenging a ruling by District Judge Howard Riddle at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in south London that extradition would not breach his human rights.

He has described the extradition ruling as "rubber-stamping" and the result of a "European arrest warrant system run amok". Extradition comes under 2001 "panic laws" brought in after 9/11

Assange says the allegations were politically-motivated, particularly after the WikiLeaks website published a mass of leaked American WAR CRIMES and diplomatic cables that rocked the US government.

He said nothing as he arrived at the court in London with lawyers. A handful of supporters gathered outside the entrance to greet him.

Assange hosted a lavish 40th birthday party at the weekend attended by celebrity guests and 2,000 supporters.

Assange's lawyers are expected to argue that the alleged offences are not extradition offences and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process and incompatible with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

They are also expected to challenge the validity of the arrest warrant and complain that it did not contain a proper, fair and accurate description of the alleged sexual misconduct.

Although not charged, the Australian computer expert faces questioning on three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape, said to have been committed in Stockholm last August. The accusations were made by two female WikiLeaks volunteers.

Assange has expressed fears that extradition to Sweden could be a stepping stone to being sent to the US to stand trial on fresh.









http://imageshack.us/...­
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,604
Julian leaves final hearing - court defers Assange extradition decision‎ - 13/07/2011
http://www.flickr.com...­



Eyewitness account from the Royal Crown Courts
2011-07-13
http://wlcentral.org/...­



I have to confess that I paid less attention to Wikileaks over the last couple of months than before. The usual excuses: I had lots of other interesting things to do. Maybe the novelty had worn out. I had definitely also been lulled asleep by the fact that the Netherlands still seems running smoothly and by the assurance that Sweden would not be allowed to extradite without permission from the UK. So it was a rough awakening when I read on the brilliant website SwedenversusAssange how an extradition would be realized:
http://www.swedenvers...­

That fast and that easy!!

I realize that the trial at the Royal Crown Courts could actually be the last one that is going to be public (rape trials in Sweden are behind closed doors and the ‘secret jury in Virginia’ also doesn’t sound like the place where ordinary democratic people will be invited to inform themselves). Then I also realize that I want to complete my journey as a witness to the best of my ability. To understand what is going on the best I can. To truly be able to assess how far justice will be done or how far I am seeing a society where those in power can now use all the systems, also those that are in place to protect the whole of society, to their advantage and to their advantage alone.

Some interesting observations on my way to the courtroom: It is opposite the street of ‘Australia House’. This is the location of the Australian Embassy, the Australian Centre and the Australian High commission. Despite this, Australians present at the trial tell me, the Embassy is not represented at all. I find this amazing and would hope that my Embassy would do better in similar situations.

Con...
http://wlcentral.org/...­


Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,605


Marine inquiry faulted Manning treatment
http://www.politico.c...­

Barack Obama on Bradley Manning: 'He broke the law'
Our constitutional expert president as comander in chief over a military tribunal of a private
http://www.politico.c...­

President Barack Obama’s assertion at a recent California fundraiser that Bradley Manning “broke the law” may have run afoul of presidential protocol, according to legal analysts who have been tracking the case of the Army private charged in the WikiLeaks case.

“I have to abide by certain classified information,” Obama said on a video that quickly began to circulate among media outlets Friday. “If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law. … We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. … He broke the law.”

Read more: http://www.politico.c...­

“The comment was not appropriate because it assumes that Manning is guilty,” Steven Aftergood, a classified information expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told POLITICO. “The president got carried away and misspoke. No one should mistake a charge for a conviction — especially the nation’s highest official.”

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice and military law expert, predicted that before the end of the day, the White House will have issued a corrective statement.

“Commenting on Manning’s conditions of confinement is one thing — I would have strongly advised him to not comment about Manning’s guilt,” Fidell told POLITICO.

P.J. Crowley resigns over Manning remark
Resigning from Obamas own administration
http://www.politico.c...­
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,606


Marine inquiry faulted Manning treatment
http://www.politico.c...­

The commander of the Marine base where Wikileaks suspect Pvt. Bradley Manning was jailed for nearly 10 months ordered an inquiry into his treatment and then overruled one of the investigator’s findings, Marine Corps documents obtained by POLITICO show.

A special investigation determined that Manning’s jailers violated Navy policy by keeping him on suicide watch after psychiatrists concluded he was not a threat to himself, but the commander rejected that conclusion, according to the documents.

The Obama administration this year became embroiled in questions over Manning’s treatment at Quantico after his jail conditions — including a requirement at one point that he be stripped of all clothing — drew complaints from human rights groups and American activists.

Then-State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley joined in the criticism, calling Manning’s treatment “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” After President Barack Obama was asked about Crowley’s comments at a White House press conference, Crowley resigned. Obama said the military had assured him that Manning’s treatment was appropriate. But in April Manning was moved to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he is being detained under more lax conditions.

On Tuesday, a United Nations official again complained publicly that the U.S. military has denied his request for a confidential meeting with Manning. “It is imperative that I talk to Mr. Manning under conditions where I can be assured that he is being absolutely candid,” U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez said in a statement.



Manning — a junior Army intelligence analyst — has been in custody since May of last year, charged with aiding the enemy, leaking classified and unclassified files from military computer networks and exceeding his authorized access to military computer systems, among other crimes.

The Marines deleted the name and rank of the officer who conducted the “special inquiry” from documents released to POLITICO recently in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in March. However, military records posted on the Internet identify the Corrections Section chief as Chief Warrant Officer-5 Abel Galaviz.

Galaviz’s review, conducted in February, largely rejected Manning’s complaints that he was being treated too harshly. The senior corrections specialist concluded that the Quantico brig commander, Chief Warrant Officer-4 James Averhart Jr., did not abuse his discretion by classifying Manning as a maximum security prisoner, by placing him on a “prevention of injury” watch or by putting him on suicide watch.

However, Galaviz said that brig personnel ignored the Navy Corrections Manual when they kept Manning on suicide watch in August 2010 and January 2011 for several days after doctors said it was inappropriate.

“On two occasions … a medical officer determined that suicide risk status was no longer warranted and the brig staff did not immediately take PFC Manning off the suicide risk status,” Galaviz wrote in his February 23 findings. In one instance, the suicide watch continued for five days after doctors recommended it be canceled and in another it went on for two to three days, the review found.

“Once the medical officer’s evaluation was provided to brig staff, steps should have been taken to immediately remove him from suicide risk, to a status below that,” Galaviz wrote. He urged that the Quantico brig’s operating procedures be changed to “direct the brig staff to remove confinees from suicide risk immediately upon receiving a medical officer’s evaluation.”

The released documents also confirm that psychiatrists or psychologists recommended on at least 20 occasions that Manning be removed from “prevention of injury” status, a level of restriction just below suicide watch, but brig commanders rejected the recommendations.

On March 1, Quantico commander Col. Daniel Choike issued a memo embracing most of Galaviz’s report but rejecting the corrections specialist’s only critique of Manning’s treatment.

“There is no requirement … that requires an immediate removal from suicide risk after the [brig’s] mental health care provider or medical officer recommends it,” Choike wrote to Manning. The delays in removing Manning from suicide watch were “reasonable in light of all the information available to the [brig] commander and applicable … procedures,” Choike concluded. “I do not concur with [Galaviz] that an ‘immediate move’ is required.”
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,607


Marine inquiry faulted Manning treatment
http://www.politico.c...­

Con....

When Manning was transferred to Fort Leavenworth in April, the Pentagon’s top lawyer insisted that Manning’s treatment at Quantico had complied with the law and military regulations at every turn.

“Many will be tempted to interpret today’s action as a criticism of the pre-trial facility at Quantico. That is not the case,” Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson told reporters at a news conference April 19. “We remain satisfied that Private Manning’s pre-trial confinement at Quantico was in compliance with legal and regulatory standards in all respects, and we salute the military personnel there for the job they did in difficult circumstances.”

A spokesman for Johnson told POLITICO that the legal adviser was unaware of the Marine Corps “special inquiry” and its conclusion that the suicide watches imposed on Manning went on too long. “Mr. Johnson wasn’t aware of that finding when he conducted the press briefing,” Army Lt. Col. James Gregory said.

Choike said in an April 8 memo that he’d directed the brig to “update its regulations” to show that a medical officer’s determination that a prisoner is not a suicide risk “is binding on the PCF staff and the detainee shall be removed from suicide risk.” However, the colonel’s memo did not appear to address how quickly such a move must take place, according to the documents the Marines released. Substantial portions of the documents were deleted on privacy grounds.

In the April memo, directed to the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, Choike also minimized the impact of the suicide risk status on Manning.

“As PFC Manning was already administratively segregated as a maximum custody detainee and under special handling instructions for the prevention of injury, the only additional instructions for suicide risk was the removal of PFC Manning’s outer garments and his eyeglasses and the posting of a guard who could keep PFC Manning under continuous observation,” Choike wrote.



Manning’s complaint about his treatment was formally rejected by the Navy, which oversees the Marine Corps, on June 13. Assistant Navy Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs Juan Garcia wrote to Manning that he concurred with Choike’s conclusion that Manning’s complaint was “without merit.”

Garcia also said that even if Manning’s complaint had merit, his transfer to Leavenworth made unavailable the relief Manning requested at the brig — a move from maximum security to medium security and an end to the prevention of injury watch.

Choike declined to be interviewed for this story. “The base commander’s and the brig commander’s main concern is always and will continue to be the safety of all those in their care,” a Quantico spokesman said.

Crowley told POLITICO that the Navy review of Manning’s complaint largely ignored the question of whether the prisoner’s treatment was wise.

“I never questioned that the brig commander had the authority to do what he did,” Crowley said. “I questioned why the echelons above the brig commander failed to see how his treatment, particularly discretionary judgments regarding the potential for injury and suicide, was undermining the credibility of his pending and necessary prosecution. … It is clear in the documents that there was a division of opinion between the brig commander and the mental health professionals.”

“No one in the chain of command was looking at the bigger picture,” Crowley added. “The Army eventually got it right, once it took back responsibility for Private Manning from the Marine Corps.”

Manning’s civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, declined to comment. However, in a blog post last month, Coombs said that if Manning’s case proceeds to a court martial he plans to complain to the military judge that Manning’s treatment violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says pre-trial confinement shall not be “more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure [a defendant’s] presence.”

The inquiry did not address orders given by Averhart’s successor, Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes, in March that Manning be stripped naked while in his cell. The order followed what Manning’s lawyer says was a “sarcastic quip” the prisoner made that he could kill himself with his underwear wasteband or his flip-flops. The documents say that complaint is being handled separately.

The Army announced in April that Manning was found competent for trial. However, Army spokeswoman Shaunteh Kelly said no date has been scheduled for his long-delayed preliminary hearing.

POLITICO’s request to the Marine Corps for records related to Manning’s complaints was rejected twice by Quantico officials. In both instances, Navy Freedom of Information Act officials granted appeals filed by POLITICO and instructed the Quantico command to consider the request again.


Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,619


Statement by Mr. Juan E Méndez, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 16th session of the Human Rights Council, 7 March 2011
http://www.ohchr.org/...­

"On Tuesday, a United Nations official again complained publicly that the U.S. military has denied his request for a confidential meeting with Manning. “It is imperative that I talk to Mr. Manning under conditions where I can be assured that he is being absolutely candid,” U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez said in a statement."

Marine inquiry faults Bradley Manning treatment
http://www.wired.com/...­ http://www2.ohchr.org...­
http://www.politico.c...­
http://www.politico.c...­
http://www.cidh.oas.o...­
http://www.change.org...­

Mr. President, Distinguished Representatives, Observers, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is with great honor that I address this Council, for the first time, in my capacity as United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In so doing, I wish to thank the distinguished Representatives of this august body for the confidence you have placed on me. I also would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Manfred Nowak, for his outstanding work and dedication to the mandate. As this is my first statement to the Council, please allow me to use this opportunity to outline my vision and plans for my tenure.

Mr. President,

The ordeal of victims of torture endures even when the torture itself has ended. Victims experience many forms of long-term physical and psychological damage as a result of torture and ill treatment. In this regard, I am encouraged by the heroic efforts of various organizations whose work ensures that there are appropriate remedies and reparation for victims. The work of such organizations seeks to include and promote the perspectives of victims and survivors in the development of programmes and policies aimed at addressing torture. This is a goal that I wholeheartedly support and will pursue during my tenure.

Mr. President,

I believe that efforts to combat torture require a victim-centered perspective that seeks an integrated long-term approach to adequate redress and reparation, including compensation and rehabilitation for victims and their families. While international law and practice requires certain minimum standards and principles in relation to redress and reparations for victims of torture, I am concerned that some States only award formal rights which are often modest and peripheral to the justice systems. I am equally dissatisfied by the lack of progress in institutionalizing basic principles and guidelines which seek to provide minimum standards for victims. It is my conviction that victims must have a central role in holding torturers accountable for their actions. Indeed, the criminal procedures of some States are more favorable than those of others to this engagement by victims; nevertheless, without undermining defendants’ rights to all guarantees of a fair trial, victims should be allowed to participate actively in attempts to hold their torturers accountable through criminal prosecutions and trials.

With respect to the rehabilitation of victims and survivors of torture, efforts to provide assistance must seek to recognize and validate the traumatic experience of torture that victims have suffered, as well as to prevent their further isolation by reintegrating victims into society. They must address the main aim of torture which is generally to isolate and engender fear in victims in order to break their will.

Mr. President,

I will now turn to the main themes dealt with in my report:

Article 15 of the torture convention serves an important preventive function by requiring the exclusion of statements and confessions obtained through torture in criminal proceedings (except in proceedings against the torturer and for the purpose of showing that the statement was made). In this manner, the norm denies those who engage in torture the ability to use information wrongfully obtained against the defendant. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to discourage torture, even though in addition it is a key feature of the right to a fair trial to which all criminal defendants are entitled. The torturer must know that his mistreatment of the person under interrogation jeopardizes the State’s ability to bring charges and successfully punish offenders. I am concerned that attempts to restrict the applicability of the exclusionary rule represent a serious threat to international efforts to eradicate torture. In many jurisdictions the rule is made illusory by a tendency to admit the statement or confession unless the victim proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he has been tortured. This shift of the burden goes a long way in negating the very purpose of the rule, as it constitutes an incentive to interrogators to torture as long as no physical evidence is left behind. In contrast, many jurisdictions require all evidence to be surrounded by procedural requirements (like notice to the person arrested about his rights, judicial warrants for search and seizures) that in practice reinforce the rule of exclusion of Art. 15 CAT.
Likewise, it is of deep concern to me that States that do not use wrongfully obtained evidence in criminal prosecutions nevertheless claim for themselves the right regularly to receive and rely on such information for other purposes – either as intelligence or for other administrative proceedings – even if the sources and methods present a real risk that the information has been acquired as a result of torture and ill-treatment. In other cases, States regularly use wrongfully obtained evidence that they receive from third party States, even if they know that it has been obtained through torture. Receiving or relying on information from third parties which may be compromised by the use of torture should not be deemed an acceptable tool to gain information, even if the information is considered valuable. The receiving State is under a general duty to cooperate with other States and the international community in the eradication of the practice of torture and, instead, the practice of receiving and using illegally obtained evidence, for any purpose, tends to recreate the conditions for the continued pervasiveness of these practices.
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy