We are Bradley Manning

Stengah wrote:
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.

Seriously. This is the first time I've seen people care about a legal name.

Stengah wrote:
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.

Fair point but:

a) he's basically an entertainer
b) I don't care enough about him to bother remembering his real name

But I digress. Yes, we should focus on the treason aspect of Manning in this discussion.

Migrating my comments on the "treason" accusations from Hypatian's thread to this one.

The simple fact is that even the judge in the case determine that Manning did not commit full-on treason.

I'm getting a little irked at the constant claims of 'traitor' and 'treason' that are merely emotionally-charged insults and not based on reality.

From the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Given that the trial established that Manning did not provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and obviously was not waging war agains the US, Manning's actions to not fit the requirements to be labeled 'treason'.

We may argue whether they leaks were justified, but it was fully established in the trial that Manning's intents were patriotic in nature, as misguided as her actions may have been.

Farscry wrote:

Migrating my comments on the "treason" accusations from Hypatian's thread to this one.

The simple fact is that even the judge in the case determine that Manning did not commit full-on treason.

I'm getting a little irked at the constant claims of 'traitor' and 'treason' that are merely emotionally-charged insults and not based on reality.

From the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Given that the trial established that Manning did not provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and obviously was not waging war agains the US, Manning's actions to not fit the requirements to be labeled 'treason'.

We may argue whether they leaks were justified, but it was fully established in the trial that Manning's intents were patriotic in nature, as misguided as her actions may have been.

Okay, that is a fair point. I will amend the labels that I apply to Manning.

On the topic of the leaks themselves, I've actually changed my opinion over the last year as the trial has gone on and we've learned more of the specifics about how the whole mess played out.

When the news that Manning was the source of the leaks originally came out, I was fully behind her actions as being a necessary evil.

However, the more we've learned the scope of what was leaked and the manner in which it happened, while I still believe that Manning had honest motives, the method in which she went about releasing the information was not managed well. I support the conviction from the trial.

If she wanted to do the whistleblower thing appropriately, she should have arranged contact with a specific reputable journalist (like Snowden did with Greenwald) and carefully screened what information she released so as to minimize danger to US security (both military and civilian).

Nevin73 wrote:

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.

Replying to this in the other thread.

Farscry, I also have to wonder what the conversation is, or the punishment had Manning released those documents to the Washington Post, rather than the Icelandic based Wiki Leaks. That, among other factors we have discussed is what seems to separate Manning's actions with Wikileaks and say the actions of Mark "Deep Throat" Felt.

Replying to a derail from the Trans* thread that I started:

Hypatian wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

She still committed treason.

*cough*

Yes, I'm anal retentive, but I'd really love if people would stop saying that when it's not a fact.

No, I'm afraid that it is a fact, one which she admitted. She didn't commit "the highest form of treason", but in willfully violating her oath to preserve the secrecy of classified material, she most definitely committed treason, just as I would be committing treason if I did so.

I posted earlier some specifics noting how Manning is not a traitor and did not commit treason. While she was guilty and convicted of the crime of espionage, and confessed to her actions, she did not confess specifically to treason.

As noted in an article on Bloomberg,

The Espionage Act of 1917 was more than sufficient to deal with Manning.

Treason is tough to prove. It should be. A traitor is no ordinary criminal. A traitor doesn’t just violate the law; he also elevates the enemy’s cause above his own country’s, setting out to harm and perhaps defeat the very nation whose laws protect him. This is no light charge.

Slate has an article that went into more depth on the implications of attempting to label Manning's crimes as treason.

Prosecutors had argued during the trial that the documents Manning supplied in 2010 to WikiLeaks—which, in turn, provided them to the New York Times and other publications—were read by Osama Bin Laden, who took comfort from them. Therefore, they contended, Manning had aided the enemy.

...

Had the judge accepted the argument and found Manning guilty of the broad new charge, the implications would have been profound. By such a verdict’s logic, The New Yorker could have been accused of aiding the enemy for publishing Seymour Hersh’s article about the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Hersh’s intention may have been to call attention to war crimes being committed by U.S. officers in Iraq, but a prosecutor could certainly have argued that the story served al-Qaida’s interests; and it’s certainly true that the revelations over Abu Ghraib were used as recruitment tools by jihadists worldwide.

In fact, by this logic, any published criticism of an American war, or of U.S. foreign policy generally, could be interpreted as “aiding the enemy” if copies were found in enemy hands. For that matter, news reports of Southern racism in the 1950s could have been prosecuted on those grounds because the Soviet Union—the enemy in the era’s Cold War—cited those reports in its anti-American propaganda campaigns, especially in the developing world.

Over and over, everything I read about the facts of the case point out that when we separate the emotional component of feeling that Manning betrayed us, and instead focus on the specific actions she took and the documented and clearly established motives behind her actions, Chelsea Manning is not a traitor. Misguided, yes. Guilty of crimes against her nation, also yes. But an individual who placed her loyalty to another nation above that of her loyalty to the United States? No, absolutely not.

At the conclusion of the Slate piece:

Whether what Manning did was right or wrong in the broader book of morality, it did violate military law. He knew that; and, in his plea, he accepted responsibility for it, accepted his fate, but always insisted that he had no intention to aid the enemy. The military court’s assent on that point was wise, beneficial for free speech, and for the country.

I stand corrected.

KingGorilla wrote:

Farscry, I also have to wonder what the conversation is, or the punishment had Manning released those documents to the Washington Post, rather than the Icelandic based Wiki Leaks. That, among other factors we have discussed is what seems to separate Manning's actions with Wikileaks and say the actions of Mark "Deep Throat" Felt.

There are also the large differences between volume (Manning released more) and scope (Manning included a wide range of documents that had no wrongdoing at all) of activities. I am reaching back in my memory, but I think Felt sorted his own documents and actually knew their contents.

To their credit though, I think the post would have handled the documents in a more responsible way than Wikileaks.

Felt was also pretty high up the FBI chain, assistant or associate director at the time. Felt's scope was indeed limited. And while the public at large knows largely what Felt released, the volume that Manning (and Snowden) have released might never be accounted for. I shudder to think if any of those documents might have held identifying information for any foreign agents or sympathizers. I want the NSA to be held accountable too, but not if it costs some poor Kurd his head.

If there is an injustice it is that Scooter Libby is free and Chelsea Manning may well die in prison without a commuted sentence.

KingGorilla wrote:

Felt was also pretty high up the FBI chain, assistant or associate director at the time. Felt's scope was indeed limited. And while the public at large knows largely what Felt released, the volume that Manning (and Snowden) have released might never be accounted for. I shudder to think if any of those documents might have held identifying information for any foreign agents or sympathizers. I want the NSA to be held accountable too, but not if it costs some poor Kurd his head.

If there is an injustice it is that Scooter Libby is free and Chelsea Manning may well die in prison without a commuted sentence.

I totally agree on Libby and believe that Cheyney was also involved in that mess.

I can't tell if this is the right thread for this or not.

Report: Transgender people serve in US military at a rate double the general population

Amid much talk of Chelsea Manning's transitional status, this interesting factoid shared by Boing Boing pal Andrea James: a Williams Institute study says trans people serve in the US military at rates double that of the general population. Despite the math, "they nonetheless face discrimination during and after service."

The Williams Institute, at UCLA's School of Law, focuses on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.
The full report is here (PDF). It explains the scientific methodology, and offers this conclusion:

Huh. So I guess the obvious conclusion is that, if you're born with mismatched genders between body and brain, it makes you want to go bust some heads.

(more seriously: since MTF is much more common than the other way around, I wonder if they're trying to do the most overtly masculine thing they can think of, sort of as a treatment.)

Yeah, that's a pretty common reason that people give. For good or for ill, the military is one of the most overtly gendered careers around.

Edwin wrote:

I can't tell if this is the right thread for this or not.

Report: Transgender people serve in US military at a rate double the general population

Amid much talk of Chelsea Manning's transitional status, this interesting factoid shared by Boing Boing pal Andrea James: a Williams Institute study says trans people serve in the US military at rates double that of the general population. Despite the math, "they nonetheless face discrimination during and after service."

The Williams Institute, at UCLA's School of Law, focuses on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.
The full report is here (PDF). It explains the scientific methodology, and offers this conclusion:

Well there is all that free (terrible by design) medical.

plavonica wrote:

Well there is all that free (terrible by design) medical.

Um. Just wanted to make it clear (even though I'm pretty sure you were being sarcastic): that of course does jack-all for trans people. Any treatment for trans issues, including basic therapy to help you keep your sh*t together, is grounds for being drummed out. (i.e. Getting access to medical coverage is certainly not a reason any trans person would join the military.)