WikiLeaks guy wants a sex change?

SVreX wrote: The far better question is why the Military gave him the security clearances they did when he was obviously struggling with a lot of issues that could affect his ability to make reasoned decisions at this time.

The most important question at this time. Since it seems like the military knew about his problems, why was he still in the service let alone placed in such a position?

Just sayin any one of these will help him/her/whatever out quite a bit.

Now his supporters can claim Mr Manning never spent a day in prison for his crimes.

Hal wrote:

SVreX wrote: The far better question is why the Military gave him the security clearances they did when he was obviously struggling with a lot of issues that could affect his ability to make reasoned decisions at this time.

The most important question at this time. Since it seems like the military knew about his problems, why was he still in the service let alone placed in such a position?

set up to be a fall guy, perhaps? someone higher in the food chain wanted to get the info out, but didn't have the fortitude or belief in his/her convictions to do it themselves, so they put people that were of similar mind in positions that gave them access to the info... same with Snowden..

regarding the sexual identification thing: too bad, so sad. fix it when you get out of prison and pay for it yourself.

Interesting theory. So you are suggesting that these defenders of our liberties are nothing more than patsies? Hmmm...

I guess we are all being pretty insensitive. She has requested we refer to her in the feminine.

I mean no disrespect, but this is confusing.

Realistically, from a purely practical perspective, how do we (society) handle this?

Here is a person who has lived life as a male, with the body of a male, part of the time as a self-described gay male, military service as a male, convicted as a male, serving time in a male detention facility.

One day tells us he is female. His/her narrative completely changes. The media starts calling him "her", and his/her Wiki page changes:

Manning's Wiki

Note that even the descriptions of younger years start using female pronouns.

Has not begun hormone treatments or surgery of any kind.

I am not doubting the emotional trauma he/she is experiencing, nor questioning his/her right to gender change etc.

I am wondering from a practical perspective how we approach this. How would you provide a description to a police officer if you were being questioned? How would you describe experiences you had in the past with him/her if you were a friend of his (as a man)? How do you handle incorrect military documents or court records?

Do we (society) describe him/her as a "he" or a "she"? Has the media jumped the gun?

Confusing.

Mr Winky doesn't lie..

he's a dude.

I see nothing wrong with calling them whatever they want to be called, same as we do for Prince, Madonna, and countless others who may not be wrapped so tight.

Wait...Madonna's a dude??

Wait...Prince's a dude??

novaderrik wrote: Mr Winky doesn't lie..

I prefer the term, "Inspector Schlongggggg"!

I'm sorry if this is off topic, but i can't for the life of me figure out why there are people who think that this guy shouldn't be punished for violating military protocol that he swore to uphold? It's the military, it's pretty black and white, he signed countless documents stating that he understood the consequences for doing what he did. Why is it so hard for people to take responsibility for their actions these days?

Something to do with morality versus legality

fritzsch wrote: Something to do with morality versus legality

this... he swore to defend the country against enemies both foreign and domestic.. in his mind, the things that were going on were not only illegal but also immoral and went against what this country is supposed to be about.

He lived as a male. Enlisted and served as a male. He is still a male and should be punished as a male. So is this sex change thing a ploy to reduce jail time and get the government to pay for his "treatment" ?

JtspellS wrote: Just sayin any one of these will help him/her/whatever out quite a bit.

Wow. That is probably the single most hateful post I have ever seen on this board.

novaderrik wrote:

fritzsch wrote: Something to do with morality versus legality

this... he swore to defend the country against enemies both foreign and domestic.. in his mind, the things that were going on were not only illegal but also immoral and went against what this country is supposed to be about.

I guess I just have a different perspective on the issue as an NCO who deals with things like this....

He should have been placed on permanent sandbag detail when his leadership realized how disgruntled he was. Blame his NCO support channel and his chain of command.

novaderrik wrote:

fritzsch wrote: Something to do with morality versus legality

this... he swore to defend the country against enemies both foreign and domestic.. in his mind, the things that were going on were not only illegal but also immoral and went against what this country is supposed to be about.

While this sounds good at first, here's the problem with it: as noted he took oaths and signed documents to get where he was and the military takes these things seriously. It's also a given that you may have to do things you don't like for reasons you don't like. Yet you are still expected to follow those orders. For instance, what if everyone in a given firefight situation were able to decide on their own whether or not to shoot their attackers? The unit involved, and eventually with it the military, would not last very long.

Sure it's ugly but it's the truth. Yes, there have been aberrations such as My Lai where following orders crossed into just plain murder and those situations have been dealt with accordingly.

There is also a chain of command for this purpose as well; he had every opportunity to go up that chain, request reassignment, he could even have asked for a discharge which would be a 'less than honorable'. He could even have gone AWOL. Yet he chose instead to release these documents. There's no telling what fallout there will be from it, how many people we will never know about will die as a result of him exposing their methods, the list goes on and on. An honorable person would have requested reassignment etc.

There's a news story out there (which I can't find at the moment) that compares Manning to the Pentagon Papers and Watergate document releases. This story notes that the main difference was the selectivity; Ellsberg etc released documents selectively in relation to the one situation they were investigating. OTOH, Manning just opened the floodgates with no thought as to the fallout. The story's writer states (and I agree) that's just lazy and irresponsible.

His actions were not those of an honorable person and IMHO they didn't hit him with the book hard enough. I don't give a tiny pinch of raccoon E36 M3 about his sex identity or sex change problems and I don't think We The People should have to pay for it. Let him stay in the slammer for 35 years as a man for all I care.

Well put...

this... he swore to defend the country against enemies both foreign and domestic.. in his mind, the things that were going on were not only illegal but also immoral and went against what this country is supposed to be about.

Not his call.

I've signed papers, I know stuff. I would expect repercussions for disclosure. When your boss tells you something, do you think he may know more about the situation than you? Use your head.

PC Police and every kid gets a trophy mindset is killing America.

914Driver wrote: this... he swore to defend the country against enemies both foreign and domestic.. in his mind, the things that were going on were not only illegal but also immoral and went against what this country is supposed to be about. Not his call. I've signed papers, I know stuff. I would expect repercussions for disclosure. When your boss tells you something, do you think he may know more about the situation than you? Use your head. PC Police and every kid gets a trophy mindset is killing America.

it's every person's "call" when it comes to what they think is right and wrong. the mindset that once you join the military you give up any and all individual judgement has got to be at least as bad as the "PC Police and everyone gets a trophy" mindset . i know it's easy and comforting to see the world as black and white and right and wrong, but the reality is that everything exists in shades of gray and sometimes people are going to interpret the same situations in different ways and act accordingly..

that being said- i think he's a hero for doing what he did. but i also think that he needs to go a way for a long, long time because he did choose to break the rules. i also think that he should stay a he until he gets done serving his sentence, then he can become a she if he thinks that's what's right for him.

If someone doesn't want to give up their individuality then they need not join the military. There's plenty of other career paths.

Regardless, to (as I understand it) demand that the taxpayers cover gender reassignment surgery is just plain selfishness. Typically health insurance companies consider gender reassignment surgery to be 'elective', much like say, a nose job or breast augmentation. It's not life threatening.

So if it's considered an elective procedure out here in the private sector why should it be considered anything else in the public (and by this I mean paid for by the taxpayers) sector?

Datsun1500 wrote:

novaderrik wrote: it's every person's "call" when it comes to what they think is right and wrong. the mindset that once you join the military you give up any and all individual judgement has got to be at least as bad as the "PC Police and everyone gets a trophy" mindset

You do realize that you take an oath and sign papers saying you have no individual judgement when you join right? You voluntarily say you have no say in what happens, and no right to question anything. You know the rules going in, deciding later that you don't need to follow those rules, has consequences.

so you think that the world is a better place when we don't know what the military is doing in our name? and you think the military is better off when the people in the military see something immoral and illegal being done with the knowledge and permission of people at the highest levels of command and just keep following orders? you can't exactly take your complaints about something thru the chain of command when the entire chain of command is in on it...

yeah, nothing bad ever happens when soldiers are "just following orders". how did that work out in Europe in the last half of the 1930's and first half of the 1940's? what is your opinion of the German soldiers and officers that defected to the enemy and told us what they knew about what was going on- they did what they had to do to help stop the things that they were ordered to do for their country, knowing full well that if they got caught they would have probably been shot on sight. how about the people that defected from the Soviet Union during the cold war to tell us what they were up to?.. do you have the same negative view of them as you do of Private Manning?

he did what he did knowing the possible consequences, and he did it anyways. that makes him a hero, even if he didn't totally think things thru.

the biggest question that should be asked is why was someone with such a low rank and a record of having emotional problems given the access that he was given? there are thousands just like him with similar access, and maybe hundreds of thousands if you want to count employees of outside contractors. and this, i think, is the biggest thing that the people at the top of the food chain dislike the most about this- it shows that they don't have a firm control over what's going on within the ranks of the military. it makes them look bad, and that's the worst possible outcome for the people at the top of the food chain.

In reply to novaderrik:

I can't agree with your "just following orders" assertion in the case of Bradley Manning.

The video released which Manning said most influenced his decision to begin releasing info shows an Apache firing on a group of people who turned out to include journalists from Reuters. There are two versions of this released by WikiLeaks.

The shorter version is the one most folks have seen, which WikiLeaks has made the most available. WikiLeaks named it "Collateral Murder" (maybe they have an agenda too?)

The longer version confirms that the group did have weapons. In the shorter version, WikiLeaks identifies them as cameras (though the audio of the soldiers says weapons).

But even the shorter version of the video shows a clear adherence to protocol on the part of the soldiers. One soldier identifies weapons, a second confirms the weapons. They request permission to engage, then fire.

It is possible these soldiers were in error and mistakingly identified weapons which did not exist. However, they were not "just following orders". They were making decisions, and acting under orders AFTER they requested permission.

Manning CHOSE to interpret this video the way he wanted, and CHOSE to act contrary to his oath. There were choices he could have made that would have been honorable and appropriate. He did not make those choices, and that is NOT the fault of his commanding officers. He was not "just following orders", he was making (bad) decisions. Coward, not hero.

Regardless, this thread is not about that issue. It is about him requesting gender altering therapy at the expense of the military, and on that count, Curmudgeon has nailed it. In the public sector, this is considered voluntary cosmetic surgery and is not covered by insurance. I see no reason why the military should pay for it (with our dollars).