One mind-bogglingly offensive step forward in the Bradley Manning case, one giant leap backward for the gay community.
Turncoat to more than country
Forget the insanity defense. Lawyers for Pfc. Bradley Manning are trying to keep their client out of prison by arguing the exact opposite of what homosexuals have been fighting against for decades: discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Politico.com reports that in addition to other odd and apparently gender-related behaviors, Manning had “at least one” e-mail address and had created a Facebook profile under the name “Breanna Manning,” according to a military investigator.
When the prosecution objected to the initial defense questioning about Manning’s gender issues, (Maj. Matthew) Kemkes said the questions were relevant to “whether Pfc. Manning had diminished capacity at the time of the alleged offenses.” An individual with diminished mental capacity could lack the intent necessary to be convicted of the charges facing Manning, Kemkes indicated.
Got that?
“Diminished mental capacity” due to “gender issues” caused Bradley (AKA “Breanna”) Manning to steal hundreds of thousands of secret military and State Department documents, download the documents onto blank CDs labeled “Lady Gaga,” and leak them to an online publisher.
After years of fighting against a discriminating military law that forced gay soldiers to conceal their sexual orientation in order to be viewed as worthy of defending and dying for their country, and just three months after said law was repealed, Manning’s lawyers are arguing that their client’s sexual orientation led him to commit crimes against country?
Is homosexuality, then, an illness?
Surely there are plenty of right-wing conservatives who would argue that it is. But what about the liberal Firebaggers decked out in “Free Bradley Manning” T-shirts who scream about “cruel and unusual punishment” because his prison smock isn’t soft enough?
How utterly insulting.
I don’t know what the defense is thinking, but I’m guessing the prosecution wants Assange and a couple of other folks a *lot* more than they want to put Manning away for decades.
Y’know, using the defense ploy of a homophobic assassin in the title of a post referring to a man who may be either gay or transgender (jury’s out) really could be seen as HIGHLY tacky. Just. Saying.
Honestly, I’m not crazy about the headline either — though I do think if Manning’s defenders are using the “gay kid who snapped under pressure” line, it is not unreasonable to ask if that doesn’t undercut the advances made just this year for gay personnel in the armed forces.
…which is the point.
Mr Wilber
Bradley is a nutter.
I never gave up any secrets while I was in the service and I am as queer as you are straight. But then again I wasn’t in the Army. I joined the better outfit- USMC! The Marines would have just beat me to death and saved us all the embarrassment and $! Thanks for the article, coffee chat. Enjoy the pen.
Regards
An adopted white bastard USMC vet homosexual preachers kid.
First things first. This is an article 32 hearing, it’s the military equivalent of a grand jury. It’s not a trial, it’s to determine whether it will go to court-martial, and if so, what charges will be preferred.
From my own reading of it, it looks like MAJ Kemkes (who, BTW is highly regarded in the military justice community) is laying the ground work for “screwed up kid who, because of command failures, should never have been where he was” as a defense strategy. Right now, what he’s trying to do is to get charges either reduced or dropped when it’s forwarded to the convening authority, and possibly set up a “matters in extenuation or mitigation” later on. I don’t really read this as “he did it because he’s gay.” On the other hand, I have seen some of his defenders run out the “defense” that he did it because he was gay, or that he’s being “persecuted” because of it. That’s offensive as all get out.
Sounds like the trial at the beginning of “A Lesson Before Dieing”.
I don’t think this is quite as clear-cut as you’re making it. The quote with more context included:
Sending a picture of himself dressed as a woman pre-DADT repeal has implications beyond a simple story about the lawyer trying to blame homosexuality and etc. It sounds like he may have been trying to out himself, and they may be building an argument that the stress he was experiencing as a gender-confused person in the DADT regime is the explanation, not his sexuality or gender itself.
Homosexuality isn’t a mental illness, but enough stress can cause anyone to act like they have one regardless.
The “homosexuality isn’t an illness” bit doesn’t belong in the middle of the blockquote, obviously. Cut/paste fail.
I think everyone should read the transcripts in Wired of Manning’s chats with Lamo, very revealing of his mindset.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/
I’m not crazy about the headline either, but it’s no big deal.
I’ve always championed the idea of orgs like Wikileaks, but I have to say I’m not terribly impressed by what they’ve leaked. I can’t think of too many war criminals who’ve been brought to justice by Wikileaks, or any governments taken down by them.
I’d also take them more seriously if Assange decided to step down as editor in chief while he’s under investigation for sexual assault. The fact that he hasn’t(even if he’s 100% innocent) says a lot about him and Wikileaks itself.
I’ve got 20+ years of radical left organizing/activism. If someone ever came to me and said they wanted to get politically active and mentioned they were “pending discharge for “adjustment disorder”” or that they were “self medicating like crazy”, I would distance myself from that person.
It doesn’t look like anyone from Wikileaks ever tried to help Manning work out these issues, they just tried to take advantage of a mentally/emotionally disturbed person.
Related, I read this the other day, Dan Choi has lost it(in re Manning):
http://lezgetreal.com/2011/12/dan-choi-has-lost-it-and-dan-ellsbergs-not-far-behind/
Of course that link is too charitable, he lost it long before the Manning trial.
Stress made you betray your oath to the Armed Forces of America?
That shit is weak.
You would have had much better credibility saying “I saw something things going on that was wrong, and what I didnt sign up for in service to my country, and needed to be known to the public to correct this.”
I dont abide by women using cop-outs just for being women, black people doing that dumb shit, and you make other gays who do extraordinary things in the Armed Forces, this sets all that back, and its weak
I love the Angry Black Lady community.
We need to talk about issues like LGBT equality and gender identity when looking at the Bradley Manning case. And this blog takes such issues head-on because they are real, they are relevant, they matter; and for some among us, they are our lived experiences, or that of people we know and love. Plus, as a community, we’re not a tiptoe-around-the-elephant-in-the-room bunch.
I appreciate Nicholas for writing this post, and though I found some of his word choices problematic, I agree that it’s disturbing to hear LGBT and gender identiy issues equated with “diminished capacity”.
The military justice system is not an area about which I’m well-informed. Generally speaking, I can see why an attorney would introduce information about this aspect of his client’s biography, as part of building to a larger point about the level of stress under which he was operating while in the military, and whether that might have been a contributing factor to the choices he made. This foundation could also be useful in the sentencing phase. Our commenter Norbrook, whose own blog is excellent, indicates Manning has a good attorney.
Hate how it’s being used, can appreciate why.
Thanks. I hang out now and then over at CAAFLog and UCMJ practice blogs. They’re military justice blogs, and the commenters there are military lawyers. They were very helpful in explaining the “ins and outs” of military justice to those of us who were visiting during the LTC Lakin trial (the idiot birther).
Basically, after all the psych evaluations, etc, we’re now in the actual process. This is the Article 32 hearing, and the Investigating Officer (who does not have to be a lawyer or a judge) will hear evidence from both sides. Note that the defense can cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses here. Then the IO will make a recommendation to the court martial convening authority (usually a general), detailing which charges – if any – should be brought to trial. The convening authority will then decide whether to accept it, and direct the charges to a court-martial.
A couple of things to remember, when the emo’s scream. The military provides, free of charge, a military lawyer. In the Army, there are two “tracks” for a JAG – Defense or Trial. They don’t cross over. So PFC Manning’s defense lawyer is a specialist in that. He can (and does) have a civilian lawyer as well, but that is the defendant’s responsibility to pay for. If, at the court-martial, Manning is found guilty, there is an appeal to the Army Criminal Court of Appeals that’s virtually automatic. Depending on what the ACCA decides, it can be further appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and then to the Supreme Court.
So…the defense’s argument is that Bradley Manning is a “Booty Warrior” and the lack of man-love made him betray his country? Uhm, are is lawyers right wing plants or just plan stupid? With a defense that damn offense and silly (many of my gay friends who support the kid are offended), Bradley Manning will get all the man-love he needs, because his ass will be sent to prison for the rest of his life.
Once again, this blog is just crap. You’re “thoughts” are just not worth commenting on, Limbaugh of the “left.” Or just Limbaugh? You invariably undermine what you profess to support, so I think its fair to wonder of you’re merely an angry moron or an agent provocateur.
Readers beware.
If you’re addressing your comments to me – its rather simple – I’m pointing out just how stupid and Arse backward it is for Manning’s attorneys to use the “I’m confused, gay soldier so I’m all screwed up” as a defense for what amounts to treason. Not only only is it two steps away from “my daddy leaving at 9 made me kill all those people” but its rather insulting to LGBT folks who just fought the end of DADT for the defense to trot out the ‘trump card’ that homophobes used to try and keep the law in play — gay men are just emotionally fragile “sissies” and too weak-minded to be soldiers.
I could use high minded, language to fit your sensibilities. So, I’d apologize for my poor sense of humor.
Calm down.
This is , merely, a blog. That is all that it is.
What matters, now , is the court. And whether Manning will get a fair hearing and trial.
Glenn greenwald…is that you? Don’t you have another “I hates the Obama ” screed to write? Why are you hanging out here?
ABLers can barely hold their contempt in check. Because they have an irrational hatred of teh Greenwald, therefore by extension, they must despise Manning. This author’s moronic isistence that his lawyers are blaming the gay is almost funny, if it weren’t so tragic. And by the way, oath or not, people are unpredictable and prone to all kinds of errors in judgement (mainly those of self preservation). This will happen again and largely due to the massive level of corruption and lawlessness that is propagated and obscured by our political class, which is so gargantuan that another Mannjng or Ellsberg will most assutedly come along. You can deny and obfuscate all you want. Truth will find a way.
“propagated by our political class”? Someone’s reading way too much Chomsky. Whether his emotional distress was due to his burgeoning sexuality (good God let’s hope they don’t go down that yellow brick road) or he just his mamma, it doesn’t matter really matter.
Tossed, one cares or has contempt for Greenwald and other Emo-Prog whiners. At least I don’t. Its simply that Bloggers like ABL and others who have worked with people like this face to face realize the skewed and rather unproductive POV these folks come from. John Chait said it best a few weeks back on Salon – liberals (particular the professional pundits and activists) are an ungrateful and impatient lot who don’t support democratic leader to the point many successful Democratic leaders are simply annoyed by them. Its folks like Greenwald, the Firedog Lake disciples and Chris Hedges, not me or bloggers like ABL, who bought into the “Barack the Magic Negro” nonsense on the Left.
But, Agrippa, you’re right at the end of the day, a blog is just online barbershop talking, it doesn’t really hurt or help anyone.
Wow, you’re an idiot. I despise Greenwald because he’s a lying hypocrite, who mainly stokes outrage to pad his own bank account. He’s not a “progressive,” he’s a libertarian who regards people like you as sheep to be shorn. Fortunately for him, your intelligence level indicates that comparing you to sheep is an insult to the sheep.
Manning is no hero, either. He didn’t find “evidence of wrongdoing.” That would indicate that he went through all the documentation and selected what would make a case for it. Instead, he did a blanket copy of classified information, and dumped it on Wikileaks. Why? Because he thought he could get away with it, and as a “fuck you” to the military. That’s from his own admissions, by the way. For that alone, he deserves contempt.
Amen, Norbrook!!
This matter is in a court of law. keep that in mind.
You seem to miss a few things in your rant. 1) The issue is GID not being gay. 2) GID and gender identity isn’t covered in the repeal of DADT. 3) You’ve no idea where the defense is going here, there are other options than the conclusion you have certainly launched yourself off of a precipice for.
Hear hear!!
Gender identity is NOT the same thing as sexual orientation, and as far as I’m aware, no one has brought Manning’s sexual orientation into question.
What we do know is that there’s a good chance that Manning is a transsexual woman. And guess what? That’s still grounds for discharge from every branch of the military, due to trans people being “medically unfit” to serve. DADT changed *nothing* for trans people, be they gay, straight, or otherwise.
And, as far as I know, no mainstream gay rights organization has ever fought for trans people’s right to serve, so it doesn’t really make sense to place Manning’s actions — whether or not one agrees with them — in a context of being ungrateful for or in opposition to gay rights activism.