We are Bradley Manning

A Long List of What We Know Thanks to Private Manning

tl;dr: a lot of really important stuff.

Malor wrote:

A Long List of What We Know Thanks to Private Manning

tl;dr: a lot of really important stuff.

But all of that doesn't really matter when we're talking about Manning's motivations. She most likely didn't know that a lot of that stuff was in the monster pile of documents that she turned over. That those were in there was just blind luck (or whatever).

I'm actually kind of troubled by the folks with little... er, regard for political reality. Governments are going to keep secrets - both from the populace and from each other. Governments are going to tell each other things that should not be repeated or made known to other governments. It's the nature of the game, one that has been played since constructs such as governments were a thing.

I don't think people realize that a mass "leak" of this size is terribly destructive. We should absolutely urge those in these positions that if they see something immoral or unethical happening that they follow the proper channels to bring it to light and have it corrected, but simply copying a government HD to a USB drive and giving it to Julian Assange because you have delusions of grandeur and want to be a hero is simply not the way to do it. It may affect some types of changes, but really you're hurting the thing you swore to uphold.

Xeknos wrote:

I'm actually kind of troubled by the folks with little... er, regard for political reality. Governments are going to keep secrets - both from the populace and from each other. Governments are going to tell each other things that should not be repeated or made known to other governments. It's the nature of the game, one that has been played since constructs such as governments were a thing.

I don't think people realize that a mass "leak" of this size is terribly destructive. We should absolutely urge those in these positions that if they see something immoral or unethical happening that they follow the proper channels to bring it to light and have it corrected, but simply copying a government HD to a USB drive and giving it to Julian Assange because you have delusions of grandeur and want to be a hero is simply not the way to do it. It may affect some types of changes, but really you're hurting the thing you swore to uphold.

Agreed. While some of the stuff in the leaks is legitimately disturbing, a lot of stuff is "sky is blue" (I'm shocked, shocked to hear that Afghanistan is riddled with corruption!)

But how about the more than likely tens thousands of documents that were classified that Manning released that held no revelation of wrong doing at all?

But note that Manning didn't "release" them, he gave them to Wikileaks, and Wikileaks was doing a very careful review/analysis/release process, working with other journalists. They also posted a complete archive of the leak, in encrypted format, as a safety mechanism: if the government took them out, then the password would be released, but otherwise it was to be kept secret.

Problem was, one of the journalists they were working with published the password in a physical book, no joke, so then all the cables escaped. The dude insisted that it was a mistake, that he didn't think the password still worked, but nobody really believes that.

Manning and Wikileaks were careful and cautious. It was a third party that screwed it up, very likely deliberately.

Also note: when pressed, the government has not been able to point at any concrete examples of harm done by the leaks.

jdzappa wrote:
Xeknos wrote:

I'm actually kind of troubled by the folks with little... er, regard for political reality. Governments are going to keep secrets - both from the populace and from each other. Governments are going to tell each other things that should not be repeated or made known to other governments. It's the nature of the game, one that has been played since constructs such as governments were a thing.

I don't think people realize that a mass "leak" of this size is terribly destructive. We should absolutely urge those in these positions that if they see something immoral or unethical happening that they follow the proper channels to bring it to light and have it corrected, but simply copying a government HD to a USB drive and giving it to Julian Assange because you have delusions of grandeur and want to be a hero is simply not the way to do it. It may affect some types of changes, but really you're hurting the thing you swore to uphold.

Agreed. While some of the stuff in the leaks is legitimately disturbing, a lot of stuff is "sky is blue" (I'm shocked, shocked to hear that Afghanistan is riddled with corruption!)

Here's the counterpoint to this, though - it's not okay that Afghanistan is riddled with corruption. It's a reality that most people have probably accepted, understand isn't great, but go the shrug-what-you-gonna-do route about the whole thing. It's good that, once in awhile, events like this occur that can potentially rouse people/organizations to action and actually do something about it. Potentially.

I just am not allowed to live in a world where the ends justify the means, is the short of it. And oddly when the very people opposed to the NSA using any means for their ends, support Snowden or Manning for much the same, it should be a moment for pause and evaluation.

A few weeks ago, Penn Jillette has some poignant insight into the two cases-Manning and Snowden.

I am in the camp where the system, the leadership, and the leakers are just despicable. Obama and Congress have perpetuated the state of martial law since 9-11 far longer than was necessary and have failed to strengthen our constitutional freedoms with much needed privacy legislation or amendments, the NSA and other federal agencies have engaged in legally and ethically dark gray(at best) investigatory practices, Manning and Snowden are not whistleblowers, they are criminals who illegally and unethically stole and disseminated documents.

I don't quote Ron Paul much, but he had a zinger just recently: truth is treason only in an empire of lies.

Manning is a trained intelligence analyst.

Oh, for f*ck's sake, he was a private. And a young one. He turned over the documents to people who tried to treat them responsibly, knowing that they could just eat a drone strike at any time.

Malor wrote:

I don't quote Ron Paul much, but he had a zinger just recently: truth is treason only in an empire of lies.

That is sort of an incredulous line. Treason is an act designed to undermine the US or threaten it's national security. I am not certain if the broadcasts of "Tokyo Rose" were lies, but she was still convicted of treason.

I just do not get the mindset that in order for the NSA or federal agencies to be wrong, Manning has to be a hero. Further, we already have a police state thread, where you can put all of Rand Paul's incendiary and inflammatory comments without derailing.

KingGorilla wrote:

I just do not get the mindset that in order for the NSA or federal agencies to be wrong, Manning has to be a hero.

This is sort've where I am, too.

Bloo Driver wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I just do not get the mindset that in order for the NSA or federal agencies to be wrong, Manning has to be a hero.

This is sort've where I am, too.

I think it is a natural law that federal agencies have to be wrong (on some level, at least).

Edit: And to clarify something, giving classified data to anyone who doesn't have a clearance or "need to know" is "releasing the document" and a serious violation. It doesn't matter that Wikileaks tried to control the information. The violation is the same.

*wave* "She". Please.

Thanks. If you are willing to grant me that basic respect, grant it to Manning as well. If you keep forgetting? Cool. Fix it. If you're not willing to make an effort to do better? There's a problem. If you're not willing to do it at all? There's a problem.

When you don't do this, you are telling me (and others like me) that either you don't think we deserve to be treated like people... or that your time is more important than treating us like people. Neither one of those is very pleasant.

--

What I really came in for: Just wanted to drop this note that I came across in here, because it's relevant to the "why does Chelsea Manning need HRT in prison?" question. AKA the "why does this need to be treated, anyway?" question.

Therapeutic Errors by Anne Vitale, PhD wrote:

Secondly, “Dysphoria,” defined by Marriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary as “a state of feeling unwell or unhappy,” or in the American College Dictionary as “a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting” is simply too soft a word to describe the angst most clinicians see on intake with this population. At best it may be an apt descriptor for individuals who, despite strong evidence to the contrary, are making an extraordinary effort to convince themselves that they are sex/gender congruent. These individuals make life decisions such as getting married and having children not only because they may find it appealing to have a spouse and have children but with the added hope that this activity will ease or erase their obsessive cross gender thoughts. Although there may be instances where these special efforts succeed, (i.e. the incongruity is mild) the more likely outcome is a realization they have actually made matters worse. Typically, at time of presentation these individuals report that either their lives are in ruin, or they are very afraid that if their gender variant condition was to become known they would loose all that they cherish and be ostracized from family, friends and the ability to support themselves. High anxiety and deep depression with concurrent suicide ideation is common. One of the most extreme cases I have treated was that of a 50 year old genetic male, married and the father of 3 grown children with an international reputation as a scientist who reported to me that the reason he finally sought out treatment for his gender issues was because the number of times he found himself curled up in the corner of his office in the fetal position muffling his cry was increasing. That is not dysphoria, that is pure misery.

(Emphasis mine.)

Malor wrote:

A Long List of What We Know Thanks to Private Manning

tl;dr: a lot of really important stuff.

Great. But how about the more than likely tens thousands of documents that were classified that Manning released that held no revelation of wrong doing at all? If you think that Manning did Manning's duty in exposing wrong doing in his files, good for you. But Manning did something fundamentally damaging in releasing papers that revealed things other governments told us in confidence, not to mention violating Maning's oath.

Most of the people I see defending Manning seem to be the people that would prefer diplomatic solutions to problems. As I said before:

. . . [The released documents] did reveal things foreign governments told the State Department in confidence, which hurts the ability of the DoS to do its job. Diplomats need to know things foreign governments would not want on the front page to do their jobs well. If you are the kind of person who prefers diplomatic solutions to international problems, the leaked State Department cables were a bad thing.
Malor wrote:
Manning is a trained intelligence analyst.

Oh, for f*ck's sake, Manning was a private. And a young one. He turned over the documents to people who tried to treat them responsibly, knowing that they could just eat a drone strike at any time.

Even Privates who are intelligence analysts analyze and sort intelligence. It is their job. It is why one has access to the files in the first place. It just meant Manning wrote and handled lower level reports. Why would age lessen Manning's culpability?

It does not matter how much they tried to treat them responsibly, turning over a cache of unsorted, uncurated documents documents to a media organization in an attempt to blow the whistle on things even when Manning did not know the contents of is at best self-deceptive and irresponsible.

The key is this: If Manning needed Wikileaks to sort through the documents to find bad actions how was he blowing the whistle? It sounds more like getting lucky to me. If Manning released classified documents that contained no wrong doing, how can being a whistleblower cover that?

Malor wrote:
But how about the more than likely tens thousands of documents that were classified that Manning released that held no revelation of wrong doing at all?

But note that Manning didn't "release" them, Manning gave them to Wikileaks, and Wikileaks was doing a very careful review/analysis/release process, working with other journalists. They also posted a complete archive of the leak, in encrypted format, as a safety mechanism: if the government took them out, then the password would be released, but otherwise it was to be kept secret.

Problem was, one of the journalists they were working with published the password in a physical book, no joke, so then all the cables escaped. The dude insisted that it was a mistake, that he didn't think the password still worked, but nobody really believes that.

Manning and Wikileaks were careful and cautious. It was a third party that screwed it up, very likely deliberately.

Also note: when pressed, the government has not been able to point at any concrete examples of harm done by the leaks.

Ok so he put the cables in a situation where this could happen. It is still reckless and a violation of his oath.

If you don't like release then lets try this: Why give cables that expose no wrong doing to Wikileaks? Manning is a trained intelligence analyst. Manning's whole job is to sort through information, separating out the important bits, analyze them, then pass them up the chain. Manning showed no such skill or discretion, so basic in doing his everyday job, in dealing with the release/give to Wikileaks.

It seems to me Manning was either too lazy to curate Manning's information (which one can at least give Snowdon credit for)or he just gave away information because he could.

Either way you can't be 100% whistleblower if you blow the whistle on something that is not going wrong, and if documents are released just because Manning could get them out there or because Manning was careless or lazy then he deserves to be on trial.

Edit: I would also note the government does not have to prove that there was concrete harm, rather he mishandled classified information.

@Hyptian I changed my pronous to refect the Pvt.'s surname, though I would note the quoted section did not use pronouns like you are asking us to. Somehow I doubt that person is telling you what you think. Neither am I.

One of the most extreme cases I have treated was that of a 50 year old genetic male, married and the father of 3 grown children with an international reputation as a scientist who reported to me that the reason he finally sought out treatment for his gender issues was because the number of times he found himself curled up in the corner of his office in the fetal position muffling his cry was increasing. That is not dysphoria, that is pure misery.

There's a lot of variety in how these things are treated historically (note that document was written in 2006)--and some of that variety involves long-standing disputes between gender therapists and trans people. It is, beyond that, unclear how her patient in this case would wish to be referred to. It's also unclear whether her patient was a trans man (who would most likely wish masculine pronouns) or a trans woman (who would most likely wish feminine pronouns.) Probably the subject in question was a trans woman--but I only say that based on their age and prestige before seeking help, since that suggests they were of a generation in which successful female scientists were rarer.

If you want to be respectful? Go with the opinions of trans people, not the sexologists with their history of being less than stellar human beings. (Hint: It was common for decades for trans women to be refused the opportunity to transition because their therapist didn't think they would [em]make an attractive woman[/em]. And they basically ignored that trans men existed. I'm sure they were doing their best, inventing a new field and all, but they still left behind some pretty big problems.)

In this case, Chelsea Manning has absolutely said that she requests to be referred to using feminine pronouns and the name Chelsea Manning.

P.S. Removing all pronouns in favor of the last name leaves me with mixed feelings. You get one thumb up for trying. On the other hand, the fact that you cannot bring yourself to use "she" for Chelsea Manning makes me feel that you don't believe that transgenderism is a real thing... which makes me feel really sh*tty. Still, thanks for making an attempt.

Now I'm going to go eat some pizza and hope it makes me feel less sh*tty.

It is a habit of my professional writing. You never have an ambiguity in a court filing if you always use names. The closest thing to a pronoun I might use is Defendant and Plaintiff.

Obviously it is a real thing. There are just no pronouns that express the duality of a transgendered person: Genetically male refecting the gendered identity of a female. Refering to a person by a name is an expression of that person as an individual.

Sorry you felt bad, though I am just some random person on the internet. You are who you are dispite what anyone says. I have no power to define you.

And . . .

The patent in question was a Transwoman.

One of the most extreme cases I have treated was that of a 50 year old genetic male . . .

So yes, Manning. . .

I think there are important conversations to be had about how trans people are treated in society, but choosing this thread and this person as the standard bearer seems... a poor choice?

Ahh. Good catch, I missed that one. Note that "genetic X" is also hated by trans people.

Pronouns for the duality: There is no duality, except in people who want there to be. If we had pronouns for "woman-who-used-to-be-a-man"? It would be upsetting if you used them for trans people who didn't wish to be referred to that way. When you speak of a person, use the name and pronouns they have asked to be used. That's it. If you don't know what they prefer, be neutral. If you have a habit of using names all the time (like KingGorilla) to avoid messing up? That's cool, too... and that's how I would read someone doing that who hadn't just replaced all the "he"s.

These other reasons are not cool. I'll leave it there for now. Thanks for trying, I really do mean that: just please try to understand why it upset me, and maybe in the future you'll be able to go all the way.

Edit: SallyNasty: As long as people continue to misgender Chelsea Manning, I will continue to periodically point it out. This is exactly the right place for that. If people show a lack of understanding of why, I will explain. Deeper discussions of things may or may not be appropriate.

But I'm not going to stop calling people out for doing the wrong thing. Even though I believe that both the verdict and sentence in Chelsea Manning's trial were fair. I'm going to demand respect for her regardless of my personal feelings about her actions, because those actions have nothing to do with with whether a human being should be treated with respect.

Hypatian wrote:

Ahh. Good catch, I missed that one. Note that "genetic X" is also hated by trans people.

Pronouns for the duality: There is no duality, except in people who want there to be. If we had pronouns for "woman-who-used-to-be-a-man"? It would be upsetting if you used them for trans people who didn't wish to be referred to that way. When you speak of a person, use the name and pronouns they have asked to be used. That's it. If you don't know what they prefer, be neutral. If you have a habit of using names all the time (like KingGorilla) to avoid messing up? That's cool, too... and that's how I would read someone doing that who hadn't just replaced all the "he"s.

These other reasons are not cool. I'll leave it there for now. Thanks for trying, I really do mean that: just please try to understand why it upset me, and maybe in the future you'll be able to go all the way.

Edit: SallyNasty: As long as people continue to misgender Chelsea Manning, I will continue to periodically point it out. This is exactly the right place for that. If people show a lack of understanding of why, I will explain. Deeper discussions of things may or may not be appropriate.

But I'm not going to stop calling people out for doing the wrong thing. Even though I believe that both the verdict and sentence in Chelsea Manning's trial were fair. I'm going to demand respect for her regardless of my personal feelings about her actions, because those actions have nothing to do with with whether a human being should be treated with respect.

I don't 100% agree with you regarding the place/timing of the conversation, but I have a different relationship with this subject (being a cis-male) than you do, so the import being different from me is not unexpected:)

I appreciate your final sentence very much and with that I will bow out. I had gotten the feeling that you and others were leaving that part of the equation(the actual trial and criminal act) out of the conversation in order to make this a teachable moment, and it seems I was wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

I'll sum up with this:

I really mean it when I say: If someone asks you to use a certain name and set of pronouns, there are very few excuses not to--and pretty much none of them hold if it's not an unusual pronoun. If you refuse (not mess up, but refuse) to act in accordance with their wishes, it demonstrates either that you lack respect for trans people, or that you lack respect for that specific person ([em]and[/em] you lack respect for trans people, because you think it's OK to show disrespect by misgendering.)

And if you misgender someone anywhere that a trans person will come across it? You're hurting them. Period. If they don't speak up, it's because they just can't deal with it right now. Or because they've given up on you. It's not because they think it's OK. It's not because it's not that important to them. It's because it's less important than staying safe and emotionally stable. Which, I think you'll admit, is pretty important. If you misgender someone where you think no trans person will come across it? Well, going behind peoples' backs isn't really any better, is it? And also, you're probably wrong about there being no trans people around.

--

And, if anyone [em]does[/em] want to discuss possible arguments for why it's OK to misgender people (which I will shoot full of holes because it's not, ever), or why it's not such a big deal (except that it really is), let's talk about that in a different thread. I'd suggest the How to Be a Woman thread, but if anybody actually thinks that it's ever OK, the discussion is probably going to belong in P&C. Bonus: In the future other people could be pointed at that thread as a resource.

Looks like we reached a compromise position, yes? If so let's move on. We will just have to agree to disagree about some things. I could try to explain myself more, but it would really be pointless beyond this point. If you think I am some kind of bad person, I can live with that.

to act in accordance with their wishes, it demonstrates either that you lack respect for trans people, or that you lack respect for that specific person (and you lack respect for trans people, because you think it's OK to show disrespect by misgendering.)

Her name is legally Bradley Manning though. Characterizing someone as hateful towards all transgender people for calling her Bradley is painting with a pretty broad brush.

She was convicted of espionage and did horrible things in the eyes of so many people, it seems odd that people don't understand that lots of people do not talk respectfully about her. I personally have no respect for her and hope she serves her entire prison sentence without being paroled. I think it would be better for the transgender cause to find a different person to raise a banner behind.

I would also still call her Bradley if she stated she wanted to be called Steven. As a soldier, her name is Bradley Manning until legally changed.

Okay. Starting a new thread. Whee.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
to act in accordance with their wishes, it demonstrates either that you lack respect for trans people, or that you lack respect for that specific person (and you lack respect for trans people, because you think it's OK to show disrespect by misgendering.)

Her name is legally Bradley Manning though. Characterizing someone as hateful towards all transgender people for calling her Bradley is painting with a pretty broad brush.

She was convicted of espionage and did horrible things in the eyes of so many people, it seems odd that people don't understand that lots of people do not talk respectfully about her. I personally have no respect for her and hope she serves her entire prison sentence without being paroled. I think it would be better for the transgender cause to find a different person to raise a banner behind.

I would also still call her Bradley if she stated she wanted to be called Steven. As a soldier, her name is Bradley Manning until legally changed.

Yes I agree with this. Gabe from PA might want to be called Batman, but it ain't going to happen. I have no problem referring to Manning with the female pronouns (and have made an effort to do so) but I won't be calling her a name that isn't legally hers.

Another thread sir. This is a thread about treason and traitors.

Nevin73 wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
to act in accordance with their wishes, it demonstrates either that you lack respect for trans people, or that you lack respect for that specific person (and you lack respect for trans people, because you think it's OK to show disrespect by misgendering.)

Her name is legally Bradley Manning though. Characterizing someone as hateful towards all transgender people for calling her Bradley is painting with a pretty broad brush.

She was convicted of espionage and did horrible things in the eyes of so many people, it seems odd that people don't understand that lots of people do not talk respectfully about her. I personally have no respect for her and hope she serves her entire prison sentence without being paroled. I think it would be better for the transgender cause to find a different person to raise a banner behind.

I would also still call her Bradley if she stated she wanted to be called Steven. As a soldier, her name is Bradley Manning until legally changed.

Yes I agree with this. Gabe from PA might want to be called Batman, but it ain't going to happen. I have no problem referring to Manning with the female pronouns (and have made an effort to do so) but I won't be calling her a name that isn't legally hers.

By referring to him as "Gabe" you're already calling him something other than his legal name, which is actually Mike Krahulik.