New policy to exclude Chelsea Manning

submitted by bablarb from jssocial.pw

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]RatMan29 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Please explain how this excludes Manning. I don't doubt you, I just don't understand.

[–]bablarb[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just grep for 'manning'

The key edit is principle 2, which explicitly prevents Amnesty from advocating on Manning's behalf. No urgent actions, no POC status.

"Amnesty International’s position is that Chelsea Manning’s disclosure did not meet the criteria for protection (principle 2)"

It's a clean break from their existing policy (tshwane principles), which demand they support her (while she was re-imprisoned), as far as I can tell. The edited policy would limit Amnesty to simply argue that Manning should be afforded the "for the common good"-defense in a trial. Real weak stuff, and a big step down from what amnesty claims to stand for.

It's also disturbing how they decided to rewrite the rules while Manning was sitting in a cell.

yes, there's more to this.