We are Bradley Manning

SallyNasty wrote:

I 100% agree that if 10$ per month is what is on the line it is criminal to withhold treatment.

When prisoners need more expensive care we should just put them to sleep.

Or ya know, we could provide the basic care we obligated ourselves to when we as a society imprisoned her and cut her off from all other options.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I 100% agree that if 10$ per month is what is on the line it is criminal to withhold treatment.

When prisoners need more expensive care we should just put them to sleep.

Or ya know, we could provide the basic care we obligated ourselves to when we as a society imprisoned her and cut her off from all other options.

You are out of line here and you were out of line in IRC. I think we have talked enough and for long enough that I am really disappointed that you would even think that I would be making that sort of argument. My first statement was merely a question, and my second was that I was shocked that the treatment was so cheap.

Hypatian wrote:

Uh. It wasn't used as part of the defense. The defense is over. It was brought up during sentencing. Sentencing is also over. And Manning's dysphoria was officially diagnosed years ago before she was jailed, and the evidence produced during sentencing predates that.

And there will be an appeal in the next six months, so the issue remains salient.

Hypatian wrote:

Uh. It wasn't used as part of the defense. The defense is over. It was brought up during sentencing. Sentencing is also over. And Manning's dysphoria was officially diagnosed years ago before she was jailed, and the evidence produced during sentencing predates that.

Actually, apparently a photo of Manning with woman's makeup and wig was submitted as evidence by the defense. I can't find what the point of this submission was, but, point being, her dysphoria was widely known well before she announced herself as Chelsea, so I don't find "It's part of the defense!" a credible source of the reluctance to call her her, because it's always been a part.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I guess the Whistleblower Protection Act applies only in certain circumstances?

If all the stuff he released was of a whistle blowing nature, sure. You run into stuff like this and you wonder if his intent was blowing the whistle or releasing stuff just because s/he could, whistle or no.

OG_slinger wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...

Edit: 70% suicidal ideation rate for people with gender dysphoria. It's not non-lifethreatening.

The abstract failed to say how many of that 70-odd percent of the Japanese GID patients went from thinking about suicide to actually attempting it (and being successful).

It remains a valid question of just how life-threatening denying the procedure would actually be.

Please don't mistake suicidal ideation for "thinking about suicide" as one would think about getting a sandwich because they were hungry. It's more like trying to give up smoking but the cigarette is you killing yourself. It's spending you entire life enduring the torture of trying to find reasons to live when the easiest thing would just be to listen to the voice that says "give up".

Anyone who would willingly inflict that on another human for punitive or spiteful reasons is either desperately ignorant of the magnitude of the idea or is an utterly inhuman monster.

SallyNasty wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I 100% agree that if 10$ per month is what is on the line it is criminal to withhold treatment.

When prisoners need more expensive care we should just put them to sleep.

Or ya know, we could provide the basic care we obligated ourselves to when we as a society imprisoned her and cut her off from all other options.

You are out of line here and you were out of line in IRC. I think we have talked enough and for long enough that I am really disappointed that you would even think that I would be making that sort of argument. My first statement was merely a question, and my second was that I was shocked that the treatment was so cheap.

I'm sorry. I interpreted your statements putting emphasis on the cost. After talking it out, I realize you were just saying you can't believe there's so much resistance to something so cheaply resolved.

Let's hug it out. No funny business though... hands above the waist, tongue to yourself.

You give weaksauce hugs, RoughneckGeek.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I 100% agree that if 10$ per month is what is on the line it is criminal to withhold treatment.

When prisoners need more expensive care we should just put them to sleep.

Or ya know, we could provide the basic care we obligated ourselves to when we as a society imprisoned her and cut her off from all other options.

You are out of line here and you were out of line in IRC. I think we have talked enough and for long enough that I am really disappointed that you would even think that I would be making that sort of argument. My first statement was merely a question, and my second was that I was shocked that the treatment was so cheap.

I'm sorry. I interpreted your statements putting emphasis on the cost. After talking it out, I realize you were just saying you can't believe there's so much resistance to something so cheaply resolved.

Let's hug it out. No funny business though... hands above the waist, tongue to yourself.

Thanks for the qualification. I should warn you, they don't call me the Italian Octopus for no reason!

KingGorilla wrote:

You give weaksauce hugs, RoughneckGeek.

What's lacking in my hugs I make up for with my handshakes.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

t was brought up during sentencing. Sentencing is also over.

Actually, apparently a photo of Manning with woman's makeup and wig was submitted as evidence by the defense. I can't find what the point of this submission was, but, point being, her dysphoria was widely known well before she announced herself as Chelsea, so I don't find "It's part of the defense!" a credible source of the reluctance to call her her, because it's always been a part.

As I noted, it was during sentencing. You're right that it had been known for some time, though. The photo was from an email to Manning's superior appealing for help, well before Manning's actions of note.

(Sorry to be brief. On phone right now.)

Hypatian wrote:

As I noted, it was during sentencing.

Ah, the article I found didn't specify that. Sorry.

DSGamer wrote:

She's entitled to medical care. And entitled to user her chosen name.

No, she's entitled to her legal name. She can call herself whatever she chooses, but she will be referred to by the court and imprisoned under her legal name. If she hasn't had it changed, then she is still Bradley Manning, regardless of her gender.

And I don't think that the tax payers should foot the bill for it for medical treatments regarding Manning's gender. If Manning really wants it, then she can pay for it when she gets out of prison. It is all about personal choices and responsibility. Apparently it was more important to Manning to leak classified data to Wikileaks than it was to enjoy freedom and get whatever surgery/treatments that she wanted. She's made her choices and now she has to live with them.

Anyone with a security clearance knows the penalties for leaking information. Manning knew she was going to get caught (how could she not?) and knew exactly what would happen to her. Regardless of how you feel about the need for this information to get out there, everybody knew that someone would swing for this. She should've thought it through and did what Snowden did...run.

Where do you draw the line at denying medical treatments for prisoners? If someone suffers from chronic pain, but it's not life-threatening, do you deny them painkillers? If someone suffers from depression do you deny them antidepressants? Gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition and hormone therapy is one of several recommended medical treatments. Why the hell would you withhold that? To punish her? To save a few bucks a month? I just don't get it.

Nevin73 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

She's entitled to medical care. And entitled to user her chosen name.

No, she's entitled to her legal name. She can call herself whatever she chooses, but she will be referred to by the court and imprisoned under her legal name. If she hasn't had it changed, then she is still Bradley Manning, regardless of her gender.

That sucks, you know. How can both you and Hypatian have a bone to pick with me? This is kind of insane. No, it's really really insane. Argue at each other, not through me.

I was replying directly to Hypatian. I said that yes, I believe she is entitled to user her chosen name and medical care. She's not necessarily entitled to have all legal documents immediately reflect her chosen name, of course. That's the point I was making to Hypatian. She was convicted as Bradley Manning. News media and the government will likely call her Bradley Manning for some time.

But I see no reason why she shouldn't be able to change her name legally and once that's done have it reflect in how she's addressed in prison. Make sense?

Or am I still literally arguing with two people on either side?

Nevin73 wrote:

And I don't think that the tax payers should foot the bill for it for medical treatments regarding Manning's gender. If Manning really wants it, then she can pay for it when she gets out of prison. It is all about personal choices and responsibility. Apparently it was more important to Manning to leak classified data to Wikileaks than it was to enjoy freedom and get whatever surgery/treatments that she wanted. She's made her choices and now she has to live with them.

This is totally illogical. All she chose was that leaking that data was more important than not suffering whatever punishment we choose. We can't avoid responsibility for our choice of how to punish her by talking about how she 'chose' it. No--best you can say is that she chose whatever consequences we choose. We still have to make a choice here.

DSGamer wrote:

Or am I still literally arguing with two people on either side?

[quote=Maq]

Nevin73 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

And I don't think that the tax payers should foot the bill for it for medical treatments regarding Manning's gender. If Manning really wants it, then she can pay for it when she gets out of prison.

One, it's a legitimate medical need, not a "want".

Two. I reckon the entire cost of her treatment would cost less than it did to fire that 30mm cannon into those unarmed civilians.

Could you please straighten out your quotes. It appears that I said "wants" when I didn't.

No, that was Nevin. You're off the hook.

I have a lot of truth to throw down about this, but I'm not home yet. And, well, I've decided that even though this may be the sh*ttiest possible time, I'm going to have to finally come out absolutely publicly, because people *need* to understand. Waiting isn't going to make things easier, and I should be clear about things in a time when people are thinking about this and making their minds up.

So I'll post a link later to a post on G+ covering... Well... A lot of things. The points I've made here so far, plus some I made previously while talking about Kosilek, and finally regarding some more recent legal developments.

Stay tuned.

No, she chose to reveal data that she knew she would be punished for. I'm not passing judgment on whether revealing that data was right or wrong. Frankly at this point it doesn't matter. Manning was toast the minute her name came was revealed as the source. Manning knew what would happen and anyone who thinks that Manning would have beaten the charges is living in a fantasy land.

Maq wrote:

One, it's a legitimate medical need, not a "want".

Two. I reckon the entire cost of her treatment would cost less than it did to fire that 30mm cannon into those unarmed civilians.

One - either way, she should've thought about that before doing something that she knew would get her serious time (or potentially killed). Choices have consequences. Freedom is kind of nice, isn't it?

Two - That is a ridiculous argument and you know it. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm not going to defend the Apache attack because I don't know the details behind it.

Nevin73 wrote:

One - either way, she should've thought about that before doing something that she knew would get her serious time (or potentially killed). Choices have consequences. Freedom is kind of nice, isn't it?

Would you make this argument if she had a heart condition and had to take prescription medication for it?

Nevin73 wrote:

No, she chose to reveal data that she knew she would be punished for. I'm not passing judgment on whether revealing that data was right or wrong.

But you *are* passing judgement on whether that should be her punishment or not in the first place. Or at least, I think that's what all of us are doing, so if you're not, what you're saying isn't relevant to the conversation that's going on.

She signed a legal document stating the maximum penalty for stealing classified documents and espionage is the death penalty. Unless she has an extremely low IQ and didn't understand that signing a document that blatantly tells you that you could be sentenced to death, I have no sympathy for her going to prison.

She is a soldier and until she legally changes her name from Bradley and changes it in DEERS, her name is Bradley. If Snoop Dog or Lil Wayne were in the army, they would not be called that. I knew someone that got married but was given a lawful order by the command not to put her new last name on her uniform because she had not legally changed it. And everyone called her by her old last name until it was legally changed.

SallyNasty wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I 100% agree that if 10$ per month is what is on the line it is criminal to withhold treatment.

When prisoners need more expensive care we should just put them to sleep.

Or ya know, we could provide the basic care we obligated ourselves to when we as a society imprisoned her and cut her off from all other options.

You are out of line here and you were out of line in IRC. I think we have talked enough and for long enough that I am really disappointed that you would even think that I would be making that sort of argument. My first statement was merely a question, and my second was that I was shocked that the treatment was so cheap.

FYI I think there's been a lot of hostility here for anyone with slightly dissenting views. Somehow my point about why the media would treat Manning differently as a convicted criminal vs say a celebrity makes me transphobic. SallyNasty brings up some opposing views and suddenly is accused of wanting Manning to get the double Hitler treatment.

Im not against hormonal treatment if its really that inexpensive and is life saving. But as a criminal sorry your rights get severely curtailed. And not everyone agrees that Manning is some innocent who doesn't deserve any jail time. While I don't agree with the harsh sentence, I still see him as breaking the law and causing a lot of potential harm for limited payoff.

And +1 to Krazy Taco. The military is not a democracy.

jdzappa wrote:

FYI I think there's been a lot of hostility here for anyone with slightly dissenting views. Somehow my point about why the media would treat Manning differently as a convicted criminal vs say a celebrity makes me transphobic. SallyNasty brings up some opposing views and suddenly is accused of wanting Manning to get the double Hitler treatment.

Im not against hormonal treatment if its really that inexpensive and is life saving. But as a criminal sorry your rights get severely curtailed. And not everyone agrees that Manning is some innocent who doesn't deserve any jail time. While I don't agree with the harsh sentence, I still see him as breaking the law and causing a lot of potential harm for limited payoff.

And +1 to Krazy Taco. The military is not a democracy.

SallyNasty and I made up on IRC and here in the thread upstream. I misinterpreted a statement of his as saying it was only worth providing treatment because it was cheap when that's not what he meant at all.

The media is getting heat for treating Chelsea Manning the way they are because they are ignoring their own style guides to continue to use male or even gender neutral pronouns. By their own guidelines they should be using "Chelsea" instead of "Bradley" and "she/her" instead of "he/him" but they are not. Instead they are making statements that they will continue to ignore Chelsea's stated name and gender in their reporting. This isn't about court documents being altered immediately. No one has complained about the legal record of the case. That's a silly distraction from the real complaints.

As a criminal, your rights do get curtailed. As a society, when we imprison someone to punish them we take away their freedom and a whole slew of rights, but we do not make them suffer medical conditions without treatment. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. Gender dysphoria is a real thing with real life-threatening consequences if untreated. It is not a mental illness. This is not a debate. The medical community agrees and agrees that the correct treatment is transition. When that treatment is withheld the result is depression, self-mutilation and suicide.

For the few of you that are advocating withholding treatment, or stating that treatment should only be provided because it's cheap, please answer the questions other posters are asking. If hormone therapy is okay because it's cheap, what about cases of more extreme dysphoria where surgery is medically required? Where is the line at which a treatment becomes to expensive? Should we withhold expensive drugs and surgeries for those with heart conditions? Diabetes? HIV?

What style guidelines dictate that the press should be using Chelsea? This is asked sincerely as I don't understand the world of publishing. I would think that the press would need to use Manning's legal name, at the very least to avoid confusion between their reporting and the court documents.

From the brief reading I did on Wikipedia, it seems that there is still a lot of controversy regarding GD's classification (mental or physical) and treatment. Having said that, I did not realize that it was indeed a medically classified thing. If she'll die without it, then yes, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to withhold it.

Back to the OP...there is quite a lot of hyperbole in painting Manning as a hero. And while a few items may have caught her eye that she thought were injustices and needed to be brought to light, there is no way in hell that she could have known everything that she was releasing. There were 250,000 documents released to Wikileaks. There is no way she could have read through all of that to judiciously release things that revealed American crimes. Given the sheer number of documents, the whole case smacks of vindictive "I want to hurt America" pettiness than true belief in doing what is right. I'd give Snowden more credit than Manning, and again, at least Snowden was smart enough to run.

I posted some thoughts about why Chelsea's situation matters and how on G+. This was important enough to finish coming out online. I'd be happy to expand on the details in this thread, or quote it here if people would like.

Capsule summary of what it's about: Why proper name and pronouns are important. Why even criminals deserve proper medical care, and why this is proper. Why it cuts at trans people to see any trans person treated this way, no matter what we think of them.

Nevin73 wrote:

What style guidelines dictate that the press should be using Chelsea? This is asked sincerely as I don't understand the world of publishing.

Every publication worth its salt maintains their own style guide, a set of rules ranging from when to use a hyphen instead of a dash to how to refer to someone using something other than their legal name. For example, many the style guide of many publications mandate that after using 1st and last name in an article, for the rest of the article the last name will suffice. Unless they've changed, though, the NY Times uses Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Some publications require, say, the use of "Clifford 'Method Man' Smith," while for others just Method Man will suffice.

Excellent post, Hyp. Also, thanks for reminding me I have a G+ account.

For me, the only treatments prisoners should be denied are Elective, and from the sound of it, these treatments are only Elective if you're a scheming insurance company.

And I don't think that the tax payers should foot the bill for it for medical treatments regarding Manning's gender. If Manning really wants it, then she can pay for it when she gets out of prison.

One, it's a legitimate medical need, not a "want".

Two. I reckon the entire cost of her treatment would cost less than it did to fire that 30mm cannon into those unarmed civilians.

Nevin73 wrote:
Maq wrote:

One, it's a legitimate medical need, not a "want".

Two. I reckon the entire cost of her treatment would cost less than it did to fire that 30mm cannon into those unarmed civilians.

One - either way, she should've thought about that before doing something that she knew would get her serious time (or potentially killed). Choices have consequences. Freedom is kind of nice, isn't it?

Two - That is a ridiculous argument and you know it. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm not going to defend the Apache attack because I don't know the details behind it.

The point is that if you're seriously worried about the tax-payer cost of the military then there's a hell of a lot better places you could be inspecting the budget than whether it's meeting its duty of care to someone in custody.

If not, then all you're saying is "I don't think money should be spent on things or people I don't like", in which case you can join the queue. We're at 3.2 Trillion and counting.