General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsArmy Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup (Corrected)
Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)
WHY? WHY would you do this now? Does he have too much sympathy and support for you? Is this supposed to make people hate him or something? Despicable intention. I'd like to know the context of "get rid of it" too. I'd also like to know how this was "leaked" since no cameras and cellphones are allowed in the courthouse.
Edit 2:Correction: This was released as part of the record. I was just combing through the Army's FOIA site for Manning documents and that's where it was released, as part of the public record.
I got the link from a Washington Post Pentagon correspondent.
The @USArmy has released a photo of #Manning dressed as a woman. http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595 …
Bradley, you look lovely. Stay strong.
The U.S. military released a photograph yesterday of Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning wearing makeup and a blonde wig—the first such photo of Manning, who is transgender.
The photograph was attached to an email Manning had sent to a therapist, Capt. Michael Worsley, about his gender identity, in which he expressed a belief that his career in the military might "get rid of it."
...
http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595
Outraged comments at Gawker
I think this is appalling. To release this photo, at this juncture (while his sentence is being decided), in an attempt to dehumanize him in the eyes of the most bigoted segments of our society is simply hideous behavior on the part of our government. Shame on you, Army. Today 1:03pm
first of all why the fuck are they releasing this photo, that is goddamned unnecessary. what kind of a fucking message does this send to the transgender service members that are still in? absolutely disgusting.
trans service members are everywhere. I was active duty when i came to terms with myself and I knew a trans man in my unit. we go in looking for something or to run from ourselves, just like he did. but you cant run from yourself, it just resurfaces stronger and more potent. I feel so bad for this kid. seriously my heart aches that he will never be able to pursue anything related to transition, if he were so inclined. he looks very pretty in his blonde wig.
What I was about to type. What was the purpose? It's not like people were asking for this. Today 1:06pm
What does his being transgender have to do with anything? This is a low and disgusting effort to break him, a tactic of the weak and unprincipled. I see right through these military weasels, and I hope others do as well. Today 1:10pm
Is there no doctor-patient confidentiality violation here? Today 1:05pm
Dear Army, Seriously, go fuck yourselves. Today 1:08pm
This is just...fucking awful. Why do this? Today 2:26pm
etc. etc...
Manning eventually came out to Capt. Michael Worsley, emailing the clinical psychologist a photo of himself in a long, blond wig and lipstick. The photo was attached to a letter titled "My problem," in which Manning described his internal struggle and said he had hoped that a military career would "get rid of it."
http://www.wbal.com/article/102073/2/template-story/Psychologist-Manning-Suffering-From-Gender-Identity-Disorder
Edit 1: I just tracked down the Army Release. Here it is
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)That judge really ought to add this to a long list of governmental injustices in determining sentence.
Deplorable...
Catherina
(35,568 posts)It's causing a huge backlash. Even people who don't support Manning find this appalling, petty and plain mean.
I want to know who released this so appropriate action can be taken.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)released under FOIA, as have many other exhibits and transcriptions of testimony.
Besides--it doesn't show Bradley Manning doing anything wrong.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)as a result of the gender-identity order he believed he had
elleng
(130,905 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)photo?
Manning isn't doing anything wrong in that photo.
elleng
(130,905 posts)or why? If out of blue, its inflammatory, if part of trial process, its legitimate 'news,' imo.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)his post-trial sentencing...released under FOIA. So like I point out down thread, you can't have it both ways....the defense cannot enter exhibits and then the defenders complain when evidence is released...
You'll have to cut and paste....
https://www.rmda.army.mil/foia/foia_readingroom/(a)(2)(D)%20-%20Records%20released%20to%20the%20public%20under%20t/PFC%20Bradley%20E.%20Manning%20Court-Martial%20Trial%20Documents/DE%20WWW%20family%20photos%20of%20PFC%20Manning.pdf
By the way--the picture in question doesn't show Manning doing anything wrong.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)For wearing a wig. And used the photo as evidence of her mental collapse.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Manning's defense counsel.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Those goons are so out of touch with real people.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Besides which, in the photo in question, Manning is doing nothing wrong.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)to Vitters Diaper.....
JI7
(89,249 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)than this out there--I'm not exactly sure why the Army did this-id their goal is to damage his image then---this doesn't even register on the radar...
JI7
(89,249 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)not only do I not care about his activities---This isn't any of my business.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)otherwise business right? Cause if he was doing thaaaaatt.....he would deserve whatever he gets right?
</snark>
Neoma
(10,039 posts)eShirl
(18,491 posts)?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
There would be more but it's been a busy day
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Who have a WTF--I join you.
I, yesterday was knee deep in canning/blanching garden veggies-I saw the photo--knee-jerked sarcasm-I know what I meant--and clearly, you all do not.
I wouldn't either based upon what I stated--but when I get busy--I "anticipate" everyone can/would "read my mind" fill in the blanks and get it....(this drives my family nuts, btw)
What I was trying to say is this:
If the army is trying to disparage his "public image" they picked a weird way of going about it..first off--This photo tells us nothing (is it even him?) Maybe he was in disguise--maybe it's his hobby--either way, as "revelations" go--this pales in comparison to the many other public figures "revelations" of their "photo's, secrets and scandals".
No matter, I don't care what people do in their private lives as long as it's consensual and no one gets hurt. That includes this young man.
I sincerely apologize for the "WTF's"--I understand, my friends and family sympathize with you.
I will try my damnedest to not try to "partially" engage in conversation and comment while other-wise occupied.
Have a great day, all....
JI7
(89,249 posts)I think you're right.
The pic is a Defense exhibit obtained by FOIA.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Lowlife bigots with major hangups. I support Bradley Manning...stay strong.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)to voting good, decent, thinking people into office in any election. It's really scary. No wonder we have so many idiots in office today at every level.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)anyone who thinks this picture is evidence of anything other than his personal choice is a bigot in my view. The fact that he has been advised to take this tack as a defense is troubling. Why is this controversial and what the hell does it have to do with disclosing unconstitutional and illegal acts by our government? It's another "Hoodie" argument....
Neoma
(10,039 posts)That's the outrageous part of all this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)a prosecutorial exhibit.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)I didn't.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)then what are you suggesting about Catherina's motives?
Neoma
(10,039 posts)Asking for help for herself is her motive at the moment. Leaving DU was her motive after being misconstrued. This is what I know. I can't view her as transphobic for the fights she has pull through. I think she got herself into a mess. Whatever motive was there, is replaced with a lot of hurt for something she doesn't believe she is. That isn't a sign of a transphobic person in my view. If compassion stops there, I just have to wonder about peoples real values.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stated?
Neoma
(10,039 posts)She believes people are misunderstanding what she's said. She's hurt enough to leave DU. I've seen her fight hard against transphobia before and I don't think she's gone off the deep end. What's hard about understanding that?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Neoma
(10,039 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and appreciate that this PM does not read to me like a 'cry for help' but instead reads to me like a manipulative attempt to engage more and more DUers into a trainwreck of a thread.
Early on in the thread, Catherina was given the facts. The cold, hard, facts. She might have realized them sooner had she NOT had so many posters on her iggy list. That's the downside of making a bubble here on DU, and a consequence of her own actions.
This is a horrible, horrible PM to send to anyone, and I can imagine your distress upon receiving it. But I suggest that you not engage as Catherina would have you do. You should not feel as if you have to champion anyone, when there are tools on this website available to Catherina to deal with people who she does not like.
Again...I urge you not to get involved. I've seen it too many times on DU---posters drawn collaterally into arguments they did not start, to their detriment.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)But I believe someone should Du Mail her to understand her better. She won't post in the thread because these posts are probably considered to be bait. I think a fatal mistake you can make in a flame-war is to ignore the person you're bashing.Though in order to do it properly, you have to be calm and collected and find out every bit of information you can. Not many people messaged me when I was bashed. When they did, they mostly just yelled at me. One had to be mail blocked. Should have alerted on it...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)was expressing shock, outrage and disgust at the Army for releasing the pic of Manning in a wig. The post strongly suggested that the Army was trying running a smear job on Manning.
When it was pointed out, many many times in this thread, that the pic was introduced by Manning's defense team, the wind kind of went out of Catherina's outrage.
However, the OP hasn't really been edited to fully reflect that it was Manning's defense team that introduced the pic into evidence, and that all the outrage about the pic directed at the Army is completely misplaced.
There are plenty of reasons to be pissed at the Army. This pic isn't one of those reasons.
This round of outrage failed miserably.
Sid
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but yes this will backfire massively.
cali
(114,904 posts)fuck them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I ask because I look at that photo and I see a young person doing nothing wrong.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but we know too that being feminine in any way, or non chest thumping masculine is a sign of weakness and something to mock.
idiot world we live in.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of an exhibit entered by the defense under FOIA requests is apparently smearing the OP because I do not share her emotions and reactions to the photo.
Idiot world, and sometimes, DU is representative of that in ways that are breathtaking.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)NOTHING is wrong with that picture, and Catherina doesn't think so either.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)since the defense introduced the email in response to some other stuff. Now I'm madder at publications than at the Army.
Response to Catherina (Reply #97)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I'm just short of shocked that the extra-legal, non-judicial, punishment of Manning includes publishing doctor-patient communications to the public.
It seems in someone's mind there just isn't enough punishment for Manning unless he serves in prison with his transgender status published to the world.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)and they've got some real twits telling all the outraged people on twitter that it's no big deal.
Transphobia and homophobia are alive and well in the US military.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I have no understanding of how releasing this resolves some affective issue for a trans-phobic person with access to the letter and picture.
On the other hand, considering the mistreatment and torture Manning has been subjected to, I have some concern that it was released because someone thinks other inmates knowledge of it can turn Manning's prison stretch onto high octane hell.
It kindles a concern that its consistent with premeditated retaliation, "You like leaking, eh? Now SEE how you like what OUR leaking does to you!"
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)So his legal team are the ones who made it public.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I just spent the last hour combing through the Army's FOIA site for Manning trial records and you're correct.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)OP has her own agenda when it comes to whistlblowers and the complete truth isn't it.
I wonder if this played into Manning being separated from the rest of the prison population?
MADem
(135,425 posts)"furniture moving blanket" costume instead of his regular clothes was a function ONLY of his suicidal ideations--and those, too, should serve as a "factor in mitigation" suggesting the young soldier's state of mind.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1) Why is it offensive to show a picture where Bradley Manning was doing nothing wrong?
2) This is a defense exhibit---released like all other exhibits as part of the FOIA requests made by the press and Bradley Manning defenders. Are you saying things put into evidence by the DEFENSE should be suppressed?
Number23
(24,544 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and they don't talk back.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Don't make me LOL like that again 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)If the OP didn't have (by her own numerous and crowing admissions) "HUNDREDS" of DUers on ignore, she would have gotten the word pretty quickly that she was posting something that was poorly sourced/poorly written/poorly read or some glorious combination of all three.
Again.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of their own actions is a feature...not a bug.
Skinner, Elad, and EarlG excel at making the user here responsible for their own poor choices.
Number23
(24,544 posts)To most thinking people, if you have to put hundreds of people on ignore in order to participate on a web site, that would be a clue that maybe the web site in question is not the place for you. So starting controversial, damn near flame baiting OPs from some of the world's most laughable sources on a daily basis wouldn't be part of the equation. But again, that would be for thinking people. I don't know what to call people who engage in this type of behavior but "good faith actors" wouldn't be it.
It's a shame that josh was hounded so in this thread. Though I tip my hat to both of you and implore you again to keep doing exactly what you're doing. It should be ABUNDANTLY clear by now how desperately your legal knowledge and common sense are needed around this place.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)did was precisely because she put so many people on ignore, and just kept doggedly posting thread after thread, without heed to the content. But she finally broke.
Here's something of note--two threads on the same subject, posted the same day, by the same poster---Why?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023471629
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3471922
Note that the last reply of the OP in the first thread is 13 minutes before the second thread is started....
Number23
(24,544 posts)If you've got more than a reasonable number of people on ignore then that should end your posting abilities in the big forums.
It's one thing to have 200 people ignoring you (and I know of at least one person inching closer to that number by the day) but if you are the one doing the ignoring, then find a place with more like-minded people (like your living room) and weary with them half-truths and poorly sourced idiocy.
As for those two OPs, I have no clue what's going on there. One is from The Guardian and the other from the Nation. That's about as much as I'll read of either unless someone else posts them.
Response to msanthrope (Reply #38)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)From OP:
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I think this was introduced into evidence by the defense, as they seem to be bringing his gender identity issues up as part of the defense.
If so, and his defense entered it into evidence, then there is no HIPPA protection because he, via his legal team, made it available. And since all evidence not deemed classified is public record, there it is.
I am also very bothered by the whole issue of his defense using his gender identity issues as a defense. In the midst of a fight for equality, if it really what we need for he defense to be "I couldn't help it, I am gay/transgendered/confused"? You can't have it both ways, and fight for equality but them claim because you are gay you should be given leniency or treated differently.
It also has some pretty ominous implications for those going for a security clearance. If he is using as his defense/excuse for the worst leaks in Army history "I was confused about my gender", they now have plenty of justification to use that against any applicant for a security clearance who may be gay or transgendered.
The whole deal of his defense trying to use his sexuality and gender issues as a defense for his leaks just rubs me the wrong way. I don't like the precedent it sets, nor what it says between the lines-"I shouldn't be trusted because I am gay".
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)I too cringed when the defense used that.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)None at all by using his sexuality as a defense.
Even if it doesn't lead to official changes, it will affect opinions of plenty in uniform who are following the trial.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)look--we are talking a life sentence here, and ONE shot to get in everything that can possibly be a mitigating factor. Also, you want a record so that he can get better medical care and administrative segregation in prison.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)because the military was bringing it up via official counseling statements and records.
https://www.rmda.army.mil/foia/FOIA_ReadingRoom/%28a%29%282%29%28D%29%20-%20Records%20released%20to%20the%20public%20under%20t%5CPFC%20Bradley%20E.%20Manning%20Court-Martial%20Trial%20Documents%5CDE%20RRR-Counseling%20to%20Adkins%20from%20Lim_Redacted.pdf
https://www.rmda.army.mil/foia/FOIA_ReadingRoom/%28a%29%282%29%28D%29%20-%20Records%20released%20to%20the%20public%20under%20t%5CPFC%20Bradley%20E.%20Manning%20Court-Martial%20Trial%20Documents%5CDE%20NNN-105008-MFR%20Behavior%20of%20Manning.pdf
There was other stuff there too about how Manning's co-workers, fellow soldiers were uncomfortable around him. I don't think this in any way reinforces the "I shouldn't be trusted because I am gay". On the contrary, it shows how out of touch, backwards, homophobic and transphobic the military is.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and definitely WAS part of military culture when Manning was in the military. Same thing with women and other minorities.
Since he left the military, things have changed but while he was there, he had to abide by the awful DADT rule. He spoke about this himself before he was arrested.
I hope the defense is that that kind of bigotry is damaging to people. The problem ISN"T Manning, it is the Military's bigotry towards, not just gays, but women and other minorities.
I would like to see the transcript though as I am just speculating.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)The leftwing reporters who faithfully attended every day of the trial speak glowingly of him.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the weakness-confused angle. It has to do with the fact that he was operating in an environment where being GLBT was ILLEGAL at the time.
It's not "I can't be trusted because I'm gay/transgender"--it's "I can't be trusted because I was doing my job while hiding an ENORMOUS SECRET that was weighing on me and causing me stress, agita and fear for my safety. That stress, agita and fear may have caused me to engage in behaviors that were reckless and stupid. "
See? Distinction AND difference. The defense might well suggest that, had DADT been jettisoned and DOMA dumped when he went to Iraq, he might not have felt like such an "other" and "outsider" and not had a need to lash out at the Army or members of his chain of command.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Have they? I admittedly haven't been watching minute by minute, just seeing the media coverage, and that isn't the impression I am getting from the defense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)to the testimony of Manning's psychiatrist, who spoke not only of those stressors, but his upbringing (two alcoholic parents, fetal alcohol sydrome, etc.).
This isn't about "Ha ha, look at the transgender!" -- it's about the stress Manning experienced as a consequence of having to hide his secrets and feeling like an outsider who didn't fit in.
There's only one person who has to be moved by all this, and that's the judge.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)silly as complaining that evidence in any other trial has been released.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Neoma
(10,039 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And your service to us was exemplary. 
Catherina
(35,568 posts)
Mosby
(16,311 posts)Why would any soldier go to a military psychologist or shrink about suicidal thoughts or symptoms of PTSD if they know none of the communications are confidential?
I think the AMA and the APA need to speak up loudly about this breach of trust.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He came to the conclusion, with them, that "state of mind" was a big piece of his defense. I agree with him, and them.
Why would the AMA and APA get involved? Manning isn't stupid--it was his choice to allow the defense to use these materials.
Once materials are entered into evidence, if they aren't classified, they can and will be FOIA'd.
A journalist covering this trial would be a lazy mook if he or she didn't immediately FOIA any and every document placed in evidence. I mean, come on--that's their job.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)Former supervisor was called by defense to demonstrate that the gender identity issue claim had been raised prior to Manning's arrest
Mosby
(16,311 posts)obviously that changes things.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Uh...
Right.
Response to Catherina (Original post)
RKP5637 This message was self-deleted by its author.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)discussed. I'm going to delete my initial response, now, as it makes no sense. Thanks!
Response to Catherina (Original post)
PowerToThePeople This message was self-deleted by its author.
arcane1
(38,613 posts) 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Response to msanthrope (Reply #66)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)appearance that makes the release of that photo a 'smear' or a 'humiliation.' As if there's something in that photo he should be humiliated about.
Why? As I noted previously...Manning is doing NOTHING wrong in that photo.
I am still puzzled as to why the OP took offense over this photo. Perhaps she could explain?
Response to msanthrope (Reply #150)
Post removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)caused any offense, or, indeed, has anything to apologize for.
It is the fault of the Army, nay, now Gawker, that the photo was broadcast.....
Response to msanthrope (Reply #165)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)being gay was such a 'terrible' thing, according to the popular culture at the time. Being a 'homosexual' could get you fired, or run out of town on a rail. You could lose your reputation, or your life. So being called gay was a big deal with negative societal consequences and was 'defamatory.'
It seems that to the OP , that picture is a "smear" or "humiliating" because of an underlying, negative cultural message that the OP has chosen to accept. And that's a tragedy---choosing to believe that there is something wrong in Manning's behavior is a sign of non-acceptance, IMHO.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the US, 29 States, a person can be fired, evicted, denied services or housing or employment simply for being gay, bi or trans or being perceived as gay, bi or trans. In much of this nation it can still be a huge deal to known as gay, in those States there is ZERO legal protection because of course the Federal Government has no laws to protect GLBT people from such discrimination.
Your denial of the current facts of life in the US is typical of Straight folks who want to pretend all is well, that the discrimination was 'years ago' when it is current, constant and will be so until those in the majority (straight folks like yourself) get sick enough of imposing injustice on others that you all join us in demanding actual, real equality, not delayed or parsed or left up to the fucking States.
'Years ago' she says, as if that falsehood makes her points valid.
What State do you live in?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)You know damn well your insinuation is pure and unadulterated bullshit. Shameful.
From OP:
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that leads her to that? Forget that the OP is based on the incorrect assumption that the "army" leaked the photo and surrounding info. We now know of course know that this was part of a FOIA request from journalists and Manning supporters. Besides that, why does the OP leap to the conclusion that this picture would make people hate him?
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)
The hypothesis (perhaps incorrect) was that the army leaked the photo to provoke a homophobic backlash against Manning. Maybe a wrong hypothesis, but not entirely implausible, given that the US is a very homophobic country. In other words, the OP was attempting to call out homophobia.
To infer that the OP is itself homophobic requires speculations about motives that go beyond the text of the post. It does not follow from the text of the post in a definite way.
Coincidentally, it are precisely the people who disapprove of Manning's action who are attacking the OP in such a way.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There is much media coverage of and research on public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States. Most recent polls show majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Majority public support for same-sex marriage has solidified, and recent polls consistently indicate support above 50%. Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010. An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, with nearly all subsequent polls showing majority support.
------------------------------------------------------------
So again I ask the question, with same sex marriage support over 50%, why is any indication that someone is LGBT going to cause people to hate them. With support over 50% for same sex marriage, the opposite would be true.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)please.
Would you like me to point you to a post here on DU that was full oh transphobia? Friggin DU, FFS.
Are you seriously trying to say that an average person in US (or UK for that matter) supports equal rights for transgender people? Everything is OK now simply because some states allow gay marriages? 50% of population in faviour of gay marriage does not mean the same number of people look favourably at egual rights for transgender men and women, and you damn well know it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)only confirms even you know how dirty your attack on OP was.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Here are more emoticons for you!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)especially with your buddies on fox.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Personal attack. Poster sounds bitter and more than a bit jealous.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:38 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: stevenleser's milquetoast appearances on FOX deserve every bit of mocking that he gets for them
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post was insulting, but was responding to a post that was taunting...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree with the reply. Leave it alone.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: A ridiculous alert. The post is nowhere near being a "personal attack". And the alerter's petty comment about the poster inclines me all the more to not hide the post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Steven Leser is a Fox News Contributor (and likely the alerter). I disagree with the alert and vote to let the alerted post stand.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The alerter needs to lighten up.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)and you know that very well. OP doesn't have to assume ANYTHING because it's a well known fact how transgender people are treated in society. You know it damn well too. OP is right, releasing this docs right now has little to do with FOIA and a lot to do with another attempt to cast Bradley Manning in an "unfavourable" light, perfectly consistent with typical bigoted mind of an average transphobic moron working for the government or MIC.
From OP:
You can read and you perfectly well know that OP is not a bigot, and did not write a bigoted post or expressed a bigoted opinion. Your hatred of OP is obvious, and never mind that you know Catherina will not address your accusations because she has you on ignore.
From OP:
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)attacking ME?!?!
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)BS. I can understand you disagree with OP on various topics, but to smear her as bigot when you know better? Shameful.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts) Neoma
(10,039 posts)I'm outraged about that, don't know about you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)it should be at Manning and her defense team. I typically take my cues on such things from the folks in the LGBT group. I haven't seen too much of that at this point.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)feels herself smeared because other posters on DU don't feel that the picture is any big deal? Or does she feel smeared because it was pointed out to her--repeatedly, mind you--that Bradley Manning's own defense attorney entered this into evidence, and FOIAs filed by the press and Manning's supporters got it released.
In any event, why are you speaking for the OP? She's perfectly capable of explaining her reaction and clearing up any misunderstanding. Frankly, I'm still puzzled by it for two reasons:
1) This isn't a picture of anyone doing anything wrong, and
2) How did it escape the OP that this was a release of a defense exhibit, mandated by FOIA, when her own links indicated that this was so?
I mean, all I did was follow the OP's own links and figured out what it was. Pretty simple.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)There is nothing in OP to even remotely suggest that Carherina thinks there is something wrong with the picture, and you know it.
She is right to question why that picture was released, FOIA request or not.
Copy of my post:
and you know that very well. OP doesn't have to assume ANYTHING because it's a well known fact how transgender people are treated in society. You know it damn well too. OP is right, releasing this docs right now has little to do with FOIA and a lot to do with another attempt to cast Bradley Manning in an "unfavourable" light, perfectly consistent with typical bigoted mind of an average transphobic moron working for the government or MIC.
From OP:
You can read and you perfectly well know that OP is not a bigot, and did not write a bigoted post or expressed a bigoted opinion. Your hatred of OP is obvious, and never mind that you know Catherina will not address your accusations because she has you on ignore.
From OP:
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)what I have written, I am sure she will show up.
As for her being "right" to question why that picture was released, I think you miss the point. A few clicks and seconds of reading Catherina's own links told me what that picture was, who entered it into evidence, and why it was released. So, she can "question" all she wants, but when the evidence is available to her--in her own links that questioning seems to not have a basis grounded in fact.
And I do think it an onerous task to provide facts when one is writing about a court proceeding to other DUers. It's the lawyer in me.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Crossing the OP usually gets you in trouble with her posse.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)his fetal alcohol syndrome, his Asperger's, and other medical/psychological challenges the defendant experienced. He did that at the request of his client.
The whole idea behind this is to reduce his sentence--Manning is COMPLICIT in this effort. Nothing to "puke" about.
And certainly nothing to be ashamed of, either. I thought we were past the time when people discussing their mental health and other medical issues could do that without being judged or made to feel shame over things they can't control.
If he submitted a defense document about a broken leg, would you be similarly outraged?
It's medical, that's all.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
I admit, I haven't been following this trial at all, and I just went with my gut reaction, which was that somehow this photo is being used to smear him, and that since it was an email to his therapist it was probably agreed to be private. My puke was based on that ill-informed impression.
Mea Culpa
MADem
(135,425 posts)understandable if others pick up that message and run with it.
In actual fact, though, this was a defense strategy that was part and parcel of their approach to the sentencing phase of the trial.
Cheers!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"WHY? WHY would you do this now? Does he have too much sympathy and support for you? Is this supposed to make people hate him or something? Despicable intention. I'd like to know the context of 'get rid of it' too. I'd also like to know how this was "leaked" since no cameras and cellphones are allowed in the courthouse. "
...assigning ill intent to the release of this photo? Your comment implies that there is something wrong with the image.
Evidently, it was brought up in the trial by his defense.
Amid tough questions from defence lawyers, Paul Adkins says he was worried photo would be shared around brigade
Paul Lewis
Bradley Manning's former supervisor decided not to forward to commanders an email from the army private in which Manning confided his confusion over his gender and attached a picture of himself dressed as a woman, because it might have been shared around the brigade.
Manning's court martial heard on Tuesday that the soldier's supervisors failed on numerous occasions to take action that could have prevented him from leaking a huge trove of state secrets to WikiLeaks. Manning was convicted last month and is now at a sentencing hearing.
The email, sent to master sergeant Paul Adkins on April 24 2010, had the subject line 'My Problem', and contained a photograph Manning had taken of himself in a wig and lipstick.
Asked on Tuesday by Manning's defence lawyers why he did not inform a more senior officer upon receipt of the email, Adkins said he was worried that would result in the image being "disseminated among brigade staff".
-more -
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/bradley-manning-email-drag-photo-sentencing
The military has come a long way, and the announcement yesterday (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023463135#post17) contradict the implications of the OP.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)was nothing like you misrepresent. Is it your intent to disparage those that support Manning?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You really can't have it both ways.
The defense can't present evidence--exhibits, and contend that they should be secret, jut as the defenders of Bradley Manning can't complain that the court transcripts/evidence aren't coming fast enough and then complain when you get defense exhibits you don't like.
By the way--I find nothing offensive in that picture. I'm only sorry that Mr. Manning felt conflicted. He should be who he feels he was meant to be, male, female, trans....whatever.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)In this case, I think lying is a good guess.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Response to Bonobo (Reply #243)
Name removed Message auto-removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I had to self delete my prior post...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And besides--it doesn't show Manning doing anything wrong.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That vast majority of DUers still believe Evo Morales' plane was forced down even though the pilot himself said he was landing because of fuel gauge issues. Even the plane's recorded audio wasn't enough to bury that lie.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
former9thward
(32,006 posts)I guess they apologized for the fuel gauge screwing up in their air space.
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/07/20/all-four-eu-countries-involved-in-the-morales-plane-incident-have-officially-apologized
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Control tower: Do you need any assistance?
Pilot: Not at this moment. We need to land because we cannot get a correct indication of the fuel indication so as a precaution we need to land.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/07/tale-re-routed-bolivian-presidents-plane-falling-apart/66838/
You can even listen to the audio at the link.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)Were they distraught the gauge had broken over their country?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Just like how the US govt hacked Michael Hastings' car
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)person is an asshole and you are trying to defuse the situation.
Haven't you ever said "Excuse me," when someone has bumped into you, even though they should have been looking where they were going?
I'd apologize to Emo, if it would get him to shut up.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)It's really, really wrong.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Thanks!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)They go because they think that the military with its highly masculine environment, will make them a 'man' because many try as much as possible to conform to their society assigned gender and of course fear the consequences of being out.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)and of course he certainly has much better hair than Trump... ahem
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Dear Army,
Seriously, go fuck yourselves.
Response to Catherina (Original post)
backscatter712 This message was self-deleted by its author.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)this was a defense exhibit. Entered into evidence by the defense. Released per FOIA.
And another point....why is that picture humiliating? I look at it and see a young person doing nothing wrong.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)why it has to be plastered everywhere. Or why Gawker needs to run an article about it.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)No, of course not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Title: Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup (Corrected)
Edit History
This post has been edited 4 times. Hide all
0.
Thu Aug 15, 2013, 04:48 PM - Original version with no edits. (Hide)
Original version with no edits.
0. WTF. Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup
WHY? WHY would you do this now? Does he have too much sympathy and support for you? Is this supposed to make people hate him or something? Despicable intention. I'd like to know the context of "get rid of it" too. I'd also like to know how this was "leaked" since no cameras and cellphones are allowed in the courthouse.
Bradley, you look lovely. Stay strong.
Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup
The U.S. military released a photograph yesterday of Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning wearing makeup and a blonde wig�the first such photo of Manning, who is transgender.
The photograph was attached to an email Manning had sent to a therapist, Capt. Michael Worsley, about his gender identity, in which he expressed a belief that his career in the military might "get rid of it."
...
http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595
Outraged comments at Gawker
I think this is appalling. To release this photo, at this juncture (while his sentence is being decided), in an attempt to dehumanize him in the eyes of the most bigoted segments of our society is simply hideous behavior on the part of our government. Shame on you, Army. Today 1:03pm
first of all why the fuck are they releasing this photo, that is goddamned unnecessary. what kind of a fucking message does this send to the transgender service members that are still in? absolutely disgusting.
trans service members are everywhere. I was active duty when i came to terms with myself and I knew a trans man in my unit. we go in looking for something or to run from ourselves, just like he did. but you cant run from yourself, it just resurfaces stronger and more potent. I feel so bad for this kid. seriously my heart aches that he will never be able to pursue anything related to transition, if he were so inclined. he looks very pretty in his blonde wig.
What I was about to type. What was the purpose? It's not like people were asking for this. Today 1:06pm
What does his being transgender have to do with anything? This is a low and disgusting effort to break him, a tactic of the weak and unprincipled. I see right through these military weasels, and I hope others do as well. Today 1:10pm
Is there no doctor-patient confidentiality violation here? Today 1:05pm
Dear Army, Seriously, go fuck yourselves. Today 1:08pm
This is just...fucking awful. Why do this? Today 2:26pm
etc. etc...
Manning's attorneys contend he showed clear signs of deteriorating mental health before and during his deployment that should have prevented commanders from sending him to a war zone to handle classified information.
Manning eventually came out to Capt. Michael Worsley, emailing the clinical psychologist a photo of himself in a long, blond wig and lipstick. The photo was attached to a letter titled "My problem," in which Manning described his internal struggle and said he had hoped that a military career would "get rid of it."
http://www.wbal.com/article/102073/2/template-story/Psychologist-Manning-Suffering-From-Gender-Identity-Disorder
1.
Thu Aug 15, 2013, 04:48 PM - Unexplained edit. (Hide)
Unexplained edit.
0. WTF. Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup
WHY? WHY would you do this now? Does he have too much sympathy and support for you? Is this supposed to make people hate him or something? Despicable intention. I'd like to know the context of "get rid of it" too. I'd also like to know how this was "leaked" since no cameras and cellphones are allowed in the courthouse.
I got the link from a Washington Post Pentagon correspondent.
Ernesto Londo�#8207;@londonoe 20m
The @USArmy has released a photo of #Manning dressed as a woman. http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595 �
Bradley, you look lovely. Stay strong.
Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup
The U.S. military released a photograph yesterday of Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning wearing makeup and a blonde wig�the first such photo of Manning, who is transgender.
The photograph was attached to an email Manning had sent to a therapist, Capt. Michael Worsley, about his gender identity, in which he expressed a belief that his career in the military might "get rid of it."
...
http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595
Outraged comments at Gawker
I think this is appalling. To release this photo, at this juncture (while his sentence is being decided), in an attempt to dehumanize him in the eyes of the most bigoted segments of our society is simply hideous behavior on the part of our government. Shame on you, Army. Today 1:03pm
first of all why the fuck are they releasing this photo, that is goddamned unnecessary. what kind of a fucking message does this send to the transgender service members that are still in? absolutely disgusting.
trans service members are everywhere. I was active duty when i came to terms with myself and I knew a trans man in my unit. we go in looking for something or to run from ourselves, just like he did. but you cant run from yourself, it just resurfaces stronger and more potent. I feel so bad for this kid. seriously my heart aches that he will never be able to pursue anything related to transition, if he were so inclined. he looks very pretty in his blonde wig.
What I was about to type. What was the purpose? It's not like people were asking for this. Today 1:06pm
What does his being transgender have to do with anything? This is a low and disgusting effort to break him, a tactic of the weak and unprincipled. I see right through these military weasels, and I hope others do as well. Today 1:10pm
Is there no doctor-patient confidentiality violation here? Today 1:05pm
Dear Army, Seriously, go fuck yourselves. Today 1:08pm
This is just...fucking awful. Why do this? Today 2:26pm
etc. etc...
Manning's attorneys contend he showed clear signs of deteriorating mental health before and during his deployment that should have prevented commanders from sending him to a war zone to handle classified information.
Manning eventually came out to Capt. Michael Worsley, emailing the clinical psychologist a photo of himself in a long, blond wig and lipstick. The photo was attached to a letter titled "My problem," in which Manning described his internal struggle and said he had hoped that a military career would "get rid of it."
http://www.wbal.com/article/102073/2/template-story/Psychologist-Manning-Suffering-From-Gender-Identity-Disorder
2.
Thu Aug 15, 2013, 05:34 PM - Unexplained edit. (Hide)
Unexplained edit.
0. WTF. Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup
WHY? WHY would you do this now? Does he have too much sympathy and support for you? Is this supposed to make people hate him or something? Despicable intention. I'd like to know the context of "get rid of it" too. I'd also like to know how this was "leaked" since no cameras and cellphones are allowed in the courthouse.
I got the link from a Washington Post Pentagon correspondent.
Ernesto Londo�#8207;@londonoe 20m
The @USArmy has released a photo of #Manning dressed as a woman. http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595 �
Bradley, you look lovely. Stay strong.
Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup
The U.S. military released a photograph yesterday of Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning wearing makeup and a blonde wig�the first such photo of Manning, who is transgender.
The photograph was attached to an email Manning had sent to a therapist, Capt. Michael Worsley, about his gender identity, in which he expressed a belief that his career in the military might "get rid of it."
...
http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595
Outraged comments at Gawker
I think this is appalling. To release this photo, at this juncture (while his sentence is being decided), in an attempt to dehumanize him in the eyes of the most bigoted segments of our society is simply hideous behavior on the part of our government. Shame on you, Army. Today 1:03pm
first of all why the fuck are they releasing this photo, that is goddamned unnecessary. what kind of a fucking message does this send to the transgender service members that are still in? absolutely disgusting.
trans service members are everywhere. I was active duty when i came to terms with myself and I knew a trans man in my unit. we go in looking for something or to run from ourselves, just like he did. but you cant run from yourself, it just resurfaces stronger and more potent. I feel so bad for this kid. seriously my heart aches that he will never be able to pursue anything related to transition, if he were so inclined. he looks very pretty in his blonde wig.
What I was about to type. What was the purpose? It's not like people were asking for this. Today 1:06pm
What does his being transgender have to do with anything? This is a low and disgusting effort to break him, a tactic of the weak and unprincipled. I see right through these military weasels, and I hope others do as well. Today 1:10pm
Is there no doctor-patient confidentiality violation here? Today 1:05pm
Dear Army, Seriously, go fuck yourselves. Today 1:08pm
This is just...fucking awful. Why do this? Today 2:26pm
etc. etc...
Manning's attorneys contend he showed clear signs of deteriorating mental health before and during his deployment that should have prevented commanders from sending him to a war zone to handle classified information.
Manning eventually came out to Capt. Michael Worsley, emailing the clinical psychologist a photo of himself in a long, blond wig and lipstick. The photo was attached to a letter titled "My problem," in which Manning described his internal struggle and said he had hoped that a military career would "get rid of it."
http://www.wbal.com/article/102073/2/template-story/Psychologist-Manning-Suffering-From-Gender-Identity-Disorder
Edit: I just tracked down the Army Release. Here it is
3.
Thu Aug 15, 2013, 06:10 PM - Unexplained edit. (Hide)
Unexplained edit.
0. Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup (Corrected)
WHY? WHY would you do this now? Does he have too much sympathy and support for you? Is this supposed to make people hate him or something? Despicable intention. I'd like to know the context of "get rid of it" too. I'd also like to know how this was "leaked" since no cameras and cellphones are allowed in the courthouse.
Edit 2:Correction: This was released as part of the record. I was just combing through the Army's FOIA site for Manning documents and that's where it was released, as part of the public record.
I got the link from a Washington Post Pentagon correspondent.
Ernesto Londo�#8207;@londonoe 20m
The @USArmy has released a photo of #Manning dressed as a woman. http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595 �
Bradley, you look lovely. Stay strong.
Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup
The U.S. military released a photograph yesterday of Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning wearing makeup and a blonde wig�the first such photo of Manning, who is transgender.
The photograph was attached to an email Manning had sent to a therapist, Capt. Michael Worsley, about his gender identity, in which he expressed a belief that his career in the military might "get rid of it."
...
http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595
Outraged comments at Gawker
I think this is appalling. To release this photo, at this juncture (while his sentence is being decided), in an attempt to dehumanize him in the eyes of the most bigoted segments of our society is simply hideous behavior on the part of our government. Shame on you, Army. Today 1:03pm
first of all why the fuck are they releasing this photo, that is goddamned unnecessary. what kind of a fucking message does this send to the transgender service members that are still in? absolutely disgusting.
trans service members are everywhere. I was active duty when i came to terms with myself and I knew a trans man in my unit. we go in looking for something or to run from ourselves, just like he did. but you cant run from yourself, it just resurfaces stronger and more potent. I feel so bad for this kid. seriously my heart aches that he will never be able to pursue anything related to transition, if he were so inclined. he looks very pretty in his blonde wig.
What I was about to type. What was the purpose? It's not like people were asking for this. Today 1:06pm
What does his being transgender have to do with anything? This is a low and disgusting effort to break him, a tactic of the weak and unprincipled. I see right through these military weasels, and I hope others do as well. Today 1:10pm
Is there no doctor-patient confidentiality violation here? Today 1:05pm
Dear Army, Seriously, go fuck yourselves. Today 1:08pm
This is just...fucking awful. Why do this? Today 2:26pm
etc. etc...
Manning's attorneys contend he showed clear signs of deteriorating mental health before and during his deployment that should have prevented commanders from sending him to a war zone to handle classified information.
Manning eventually came out to Capt. Michael Worsley, emailing the clinical psychologist a photo of himself in a long, blond wig and lipstick. The photo was attached to a letter titled "My problem," in which Manning described his internal struggle and said he had hoped that a military career would "get rid of it."
http://www.wbal.com/article/102073/2/template-story/Psychologist-Manning-Suffering-From-Gender-Identity-Disorder
Edit 1: I just tracked down the Army Release. Here it is
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and the supporters of Mr. Manning, who maintain a searchable database of everything released--INCLUDING THE EXHIBIT YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/appellate_exhib/united_states_versus_private_first_class_bradley_manning_searchable_legal_filings_and_rulings.html
Crabby Appleton
(5,231 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Though, I'm not sure what Manning has to feel humiliated about.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Or was Mannings email not "medical" in nature? I read it and I though it was a plea to a doctor.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)your defenders and the press file FOIA requests and maintain a searchable database....
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/appellate_exhib/united_states_versus_private_first_class_bradley_manning_searchable_legal_filings_and_rulings.html
In short--this was a defense exhibit, released by FOIA.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm starting to feel sympathy for him.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Manning's Goals
On Manning's internet searches (logs of which were used against him at trial)
"Well PFC Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and future wars actually. This was an attempt to crowd source an analysis of the war, and it was his opinion that if-- through crowd sourcing enough analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important that it would lead to a greater good-- that society as a whole would come to the conclusion that the war weren't worth it-- that really no wars are worth it. He talked to me a lot about wargaming on different situations-- something I don't totally understand-- but basically through crowd sourcing enough analysis, which is true with other things-- We have definitely solved a lot of problems in society with crowd sourcing for sure-- that things would improve. So his monitoring of the traffic was to see if this was impacting-- which was what his goal was-- to get this out there for the public to be able to see, view, analyze and come to similar ideas that he did with enough analysis. You know, that this would lead to the greater good. So I think he was just trying to see what the impact was of his efforts were as far as getting it out there to be utilized by the people."
-- Dr. David Moulton, defense forensic psychiatrist
lexington filly
(239 posts)upon him in his cell under the guise of "suicide watch" is beyond cruel and unusual punishment now that we know he's transgender. Keeping a person who is a woman mentally and emotionally, naked in her cell, exposed to to others and probably ridicule, and someone with such vulnerability is just pure evil. Military personnel should be prosecuted for his treatment now that his status has come to light!
Catherina
(35,568 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)that aspect hadn't occurred to me. The real crimes were committed against Manning.
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13686
AMY GOODMAN: Among the protesters outside Fort Meade, Maryland, on Saturday was Sarah Shourd. She was jailed for 14 months in Iran after she and two other Americans, Shane Bauer and now her husband—who is now her husband, and Josh Fattal, were detained by Iranian border forces on July 31st, 2009, for allegedly hiking across the Iraqi border into Iran, which they don’t believe is the case. She spoke to Al Jazeera from the protest.
SARAH SHOURD: My name is Sarah Shourd. I’m an author and an advocate against the use of solitary confinement. And I was held as a political hostage by the Iranian government for 410 days in solitary confinement, along with my now-husband Shane Bauer and my friend Josh Fattal.
Bradley Manning doesn’t deserve to be in prison. And I know what it’s like to sit in a prison cell and know that you don’t deserve to be there. Bradley Manning was held for nine months in extreme conditions of solitary confinement, very similar to my own conditions in Iranian prison. We were both under lockdown 23 hours a day, with—under sensory deprivation. There’s really no way to describe the depth of loneliness. You really just have to get through one day at the time, and every day is a monumental task.
But the fact that people are coming out for Bradley Manning—and I’m sure he knows about it, word will get to him—I’m sure will give him the strength that he needs and help remind him that a lot of people really appreciate what he did for our country and for the world. It’s a level of bravery and heroism that really takes—takes me aback.
---
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-inhumane-treatment-over-wikileaks-soldier-case-2011-01-24
US accused of inhumane treatment over Wikileaks soldier case
Amnesty International has urged the US authorities to alleviate the harsh pre-trial detention conditions of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking information to Wikileaks.
The US army private, 23, has been held for 23 hours a day in a sparsely furnished solitary cell and deprived of a pillow, sheets, and personal possessions since July 2010.
Amnesty International last week wrote to the US Defence secretary, Robert Gates, calling for the restrictions on Bradley Manning to be reviewed. In the same week, the soldier suffered several days of increased restrictions by being temporarily categorised as a "suicide risk".
"We are concerned that the conditions inflicted on Bradley Manning are unnecessarily severe and amount to inhumane treatment by the US authorities," said Susan Lee, Amnesty International’s Programme Director for the Americas.
---
http://mobile.rawstory.com/therawstory/#!/entry/amnesty-international-condemns-inhumane-treatment-of-bradley-manning,514aa81cd7fc7b56707a19b9
.
Let's talk to the three stupidest hikers in history about what's what...
MADem
(135,425 posts)Manning was issued a "furniture blanket" costume--it is an outfit that serves as "clothing" and as a sleeping bag/bed/pillow.
It's ungainly and quilted, but it keeps a person warm, serves as clothes and blanket in one, and it's impossible to hang yourself with it, because it's too thick and tightly woven.
He had someone checking him four times an hour, too--because he was a danger to himself.
When his ideations abated, he got his clothes back.
Military prisons are much less "scary" than civilian prisons. They're calmer, usually, the inmates are more disciplined, and there is far less drama and violence than there is in civilian jails.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I hope this backfires hugely on these crusty military creeps who want to
slime someone with "transgender" pics; as in blowback from the transgender,
gay & lesbian community ... it could become a badge of honor for Bradley.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and is part of a searchable database maintained by Manning supporters---
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/appellate_exhib/united_states_versus_private_first_class_bradley_manning_searchable_legal_filings_and_rulings.html
First--does that make his lawyer, or the people who filed the FOIAs (the press, his supporters) "deplorable, unprofessional, sleazy, intentionally cruel?"
Second, why would this "slime" Manning? He's doing nothing wrong in that picture.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)It still rubs me the wrong way and it's backfiring. Inside, I'm angrier at publications like the Gawker for their non-serious, come-look-at-this article, seething really.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Your OP is doing the same thing you claim to be angry about.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)but then that wouldn't suit the whole spin your have created...right?
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Carried out by American military contractors... Is what he did really that bad? I don't think so.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)Can the government be seen as unquestionable? The government can, will, and does hide the most horrific crimes, sometimes carried out actions sanctioned by the government. I'm not anti-government, per se, but given something like A People's History of the United States and related texts, I can't trust that this government by, of, and for the people is anything other than the same oligarchical, money-centric power that has been in control of the people since time-immemorial.
I rant therefore I am. Sorry.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)yesterday, a document dump means that a whole lot of other stuff that should not come out, did.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Let's pick and choose. The things that should have been exposed vs. the things that shouldn't. I'm sure there's some sort of philosophical scorecard that will balance things out in the end. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the law. A point he acknowledged in his apology. Then what should have come out would have.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)But he didn't. He released thousands upon thousands of documents without knowing what they contained, or whether some documents contained information that would be extremely damaging to the country at large, or any individuals.
If someone released all of you most private and personal information, but did so along with other documents that exposed some actual wrongdoing unrelated to you, would you think the "philosophical scoreboard" had been balanced out?
burnodo
(2,017 posts)It is only the government that claims wrongdoing by the exposure of the cables. The government under Bush would not EVER see so much trust as you and others have shown in the Obama government.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)that the theft and disclosure of confidential documents is a crime, in and of itself?
Manning disclosed those documents without knowing what they contained, and therefore had no knowledge aforethought of the potential consequences to the country or its citizens - but went ahead and disclosed them anyway.
"It is only the government that claims wrongdoing by the exposure of the cables."
What is that even supposed to mean? The gov't has no right to determine that disclosing its own confidential documents constitutes wrongdoing?
burnodo
(2,017 posts)If they lie, ifthey falsify, if they cover up wrongdoing THEY ARE WRONG AND BAD AND DO NOT DESERVE THE SUPPORT OF SUPPOSEDLY DEMOCRATIC THINKING PEOPLE
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)the let's-change-the-subject response.
Manning broke the law. He knew he was breaking the law, and admitted doing so. It has also been proven beyond doubt that he could not possibly have vetted the documents he released before releasing them - ergo, the potential consequences of his actions could range anywhere from not-a-big-deal to catastrophic.
Whether you think the gov't is lying, covering up, whatever, doesn't change those facts - the very facts that Manning supporters don't want to discuss.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Damn lawbreakers!
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)As everyone knows, stealing thousands upon thousands of confidential documents and handing them over without even knowing what they contain is exactly equivalent to freeing slaves.
I don't understand why no one has appreciated the similarity between those two actions before now.
You must be some kind of genius.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)nd your devotion to a leader is really scary
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)You have won the DU Obfuscation Game by hitting ALL THREE requisite talking points:
1) When confronted with the fact that Manning broke the law, and admitted to doing so, simply change the subject. (e.g. Let's talk about how everything is the government's fault.)
2) Reiterate that Manning's law-breaking is the result of a corrupt government that is comprised of LYING MEANIES - AND DO IT IN ALL CAPS!!!!!
3) Defend Manning's law-breaking by equating it to something actually heroic - like freeing the slaves.
BONUS POINT!!!!!!!!!!: Instead of defending your position with actual facts, accuse anyone who questions that position of being "devoted to their leader" - who, I take it, is Obama - and who, you should have noticed, was never part of the conversation in the first place.
*Kudos on your execution of Point #3. The comparison of disclosing thousands of confidential documents, without even knowing their content, and the actions of those who aided and abetted the freeing of slaves was - albeit totally laughable - creative and inspired in its pretzel logic. A lesser man would have gone with Rosa Parks - but as they say, Go Big or Go Home.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)
Remind me never to get on your bad side that wit is razor sharp!
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)But the truth is that a razor-sharp wit is rarely necessary to cut down the flimsy arguments presented here.
An old, rusty, dull-as-a-Republican's-mind pair of nail-clippers usually suffices.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Makes me suspect that he wasn't treated well before he did the deed.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)he seems to have been ostracized as *weird*
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If it were me you can bet I'd be wanting to do some revenge on em.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Not to chastise you, sweetie. I know you have only good intentions But if you oppose the exposure of this photo, don't you think you should leave it out? Anyway, I wholeheartedly support your words and Bradley Manning. It is appalling how he's been treated and how our POTUS condemned him publicly before he was convicted of anything. I have a hard time forgiving that.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)like The Advocate so I went ahead. I'm not ashamed of the photo for him but I was, incorrectly it turns out, mad at the Army for releasing it. I've calmed down now since they have a technical reason but it still seems so wrong that the government is supposed to get all the privacy it wants and individuals get none. It wasn't the photo I minded but the intent that I wrongly thought was behind the Army's release. Now I'm madder at Gawker and think they should do more reporting and a less gawking. I don't feel chastised because I understand exactly what you're saying and partially agree, in a conflicted way.
But you must admit, he rocks as a woman. If this is who he is and what he wants, I hope he gets the surgery some day. Preferably at tax payer expense somehow as a thank you. Thanks tblue. I'm obviously still conflicted but I love the photo. It only makes me support him more and it seems to be having the same effect on the net. Maybe it's a good thing it's out?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #111)
Post removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)numerous times--and that only happened after you were corrected repeatedly?
Had you actually read your own links, that would not have happened.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The defense offered the photo up, along with Manning's own narrative about what he termed his "problem," as a factor in MITIGATION.
The idea is to show his state of mind at the time of the offense, as well as to suggest that the military screening was less than optimal in sending such a conflicted individual to a war zone, in hopes of REDUCING his sentence.
The only one "assuming" any mocking or deriding is you, perhaps because you aren't understanding the source of the documents.
Manning is what he is; no need for him to be embarrassed. Hopefully he'll get a not-onerous stretch, and be able to pick up and move on, come to firm decisions about his gender identity conflicts, and move forward from that point. The fact that he stood up and took responsibility, and didn't play games, is commendable. I hope he catches a break. I'd be fine with five to ten, reduced to include time served, and early probation for good behavior.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)This could be an issue in court, as you note, but it seems to me the point of releasing it is to humiliate Manning.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's an exhibit, it's not classified, and Manning's gender identity issues are no secret.
If someone FOIA'd that and got two pages of redacted black blocks, with the information blotted out, this place would be pitching a shitfit. "Manning is being SILENCED!!!! What is the MILITARY HIDING???? Government CONCEALS key evidence from public!!!!!!" I can hear it now....!
I find the photo and letter very humanizing. I think, as an exhibit, it was a good move on the part of the defense, even though they had no role in giving it wider audience.
At the end of the day, the person who will look at that exhibit, and react to it, or not, is the judge. I should think she'd have to be pretty cold hearted to read that letter and look at that picture and not perceive a young person in extreme distress. If she takes those perceptions and applies them to her sentencing decision-making process, that exhibit could shave a few years off the total time in the brig the kid has to do.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Are you saying that it would have been subject to an FOIA request?
The fact is most Americans are transphobic. Because that is the case, I am supicious about the release.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It had a huge audience; as did the testimony of one of his shrinks. It wasn't a secret--there were spectators, journalists, and family members in that courtroom.
Had it been a "secret trial" the material still could have been FOIA'd; of course it wasn't a secret trial, and who knows, maybe it was FOIA'd. If I were covering that trial as a journalist, I'd be submitting FOIAs on every single item entered into evidence, every single day, just for general principle. You might think you hear every word of something read into the record, or you can see stuff up on a projection screen in a small courtroom, and then, when you get a hard copy of it, you find more information of interest that you overlooked.
Navy Capt. David Moulton, a psychiatrist who spent 21 hours interviewing Manning at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., after his arrest, testified as a defense witness that Manning's gender identity disorder, combined with narcissistic personality traits, idealism and his lack of friends in Iraq, caused him to conclude he could change the world by leaking classified information.
He said Manning was struggling to balance his desire to right wrongs with his sense of duty to complete his Army tasks and his fear of losing his GI benefits and the opportunity to attend college.
"His decision-making capacity was influenced by the stress of his situation for sure," Moulton said.
Moulton also reported for the first time in open court that Manning has symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome and Asperger syndrome, which is an autism spectrum disorder.
Also Wednesday, Manning's sister Casey Major, 36, testified that they grew up with two alcoholic parents in a rural home outside Crescent, Okla. She said their mother attempted suicide with a Valium overdose after Brian Manning left his wife when Bradley Manning was 12.
After looking tearfully at a series of childhood photographs presented by defense attorney David Coombs, Major said Manning has matured since his arrest....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57598515/bradley-manning-apologizes-for-hurting-u.s-on-witness-stand/
They're pulling out all the stops to try to lower the incarceration time. I can't say as I blame them, there's plenty of stuff there that could be regarded as mitigating factors, and none of it is going to ADD to the sentence. He's technically facing ninety years, though it's unlikely in the extreme that he'll do anything close to that, even with the seriousness of his disclosures.
However, one can't say, on the one hand, that here are the reasons that this individual deserves a lesser sentence...and oh, by the way, don't TELL anyone what these reasons are...! After all, this is a courts martial--our tax dollars at work. Those exhibits belong to We, The People.
I think it's a win for Manning, this strategy. The only one who needs to be sold is the judge--there is no jury.
I think the useless opinions of people who might "hate" Manning over something that isn't a choice, like gender identity, would probably find other reasons for their hatred, if that excuse weren't available. Who cares what they think, though, anyway? It's not like they have a say in the sentencing.
I think Manning needs to do a little time, even with his mental health and gender identity issues--they're mitigators, not excuses. I don't think he needs to be locked up and the key thrown away--he's a good candidate for rehabilitation. He wants to go to college, he can knock out a few courses while behind bars, and get a head start on his future.
I would hope his attorneys have thought all that through, so, assuming he's going to do a stretch, he can petition to be held at a consolidated brig or military prison that has access to university programs.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I haven't really gotten involved in the Snowden and Manning wars here on DU because they got contentious so fast and I didn't feel like I needed a whole new slate of enemies on this site, but it has seemed to me that Manning didn't really have full awareness of the consequences of his actions. Of course that would be difficult for anyone given how many documents he leaked, but from the little I know he seemed not quite mature enough to fully understand what he was doing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)filed...
Note, this exhibit has been available on the searchable database provided by supporters of his....It's Defense Exhibit QQQ (DE QQQ)
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/appellate_exhib/united_states_versus_private_first_class_bradley_manning_searchable_legal_filings_and_rulings.html
BainsBane
(53,032 posts) Response to Catherina (Original post)
Post removed
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Now if everyone could just do a cursory read before dumping on innocents.
Response to great white snark (Reply #154)
Post removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The fact that the OP see's it as something to be ashamed of is a problem.
Oddly enough I have had very little patience for Bradley but this was a part of his story I was unaware of till this post. I dont forgive him but I feel much more understanding of him now. I actually hope he gets a lighter sentence now, the kid was obviously going through a very tough time in his life. I hope he can find peace.
Response to Egnever (Reply #155)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)is on this story - I've been told she's an impeccable source.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)at my door.
Here's the trainwreck of a thread the OP posted on that bullshit....
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023385470
Well played, sir. Well played.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)the entertainment value is through the roof.
Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #158)
Post removed
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I am not in charge of such decisions.
The Admins are.
Tell them why it should be banned. I'm sure you'll get a fair and balanced response to your concerns.
Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #167)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)there is an agenda to be played out.
I'm enjoying the battle. It is quite amusing to watch.
Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #175)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)But no where even close to this one.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)especially for you but your little clique would alert it since apparently your delicate sensibilities would be offended.
Such delicate flowers.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Like 80 percent of the posters on this board but you keeping convincing yourself and your pals of that.
Even with the omission on this thread (and it was an omission) it got 7 more recs then this one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10023456236&alert=71#post71
And I know you're familiar with that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)kills this web site. Completely.
Response to Catherina (Original post)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)The "army" didn't release this, except as so far as his lawyers are "army".
Your alert was silly, and rightfully declined.
Response to RudynJack (Reply #172)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)how an alert was adjudicated but not seen by a jury? You posted jury results.
I really don't understand what you're saying.
Nonetheless, the OP was claiming that the pics of Manning were a goverment smear. Since his own defense released them, I don't understand the complaint.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
xchrom
(108,903 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1. The releases were part of a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request by journalists and Manning supporters. Not an attempt by the Army to "smear" Manning.
2. Leaping to the characterizing a photo of a transgendered person in the clothes that express their gender identity as "supposed to make people hate him? Despicable intent" appears like a subconscious indication of how you see it, particularly in light of the facts of how the information was released.
3. The overall effect of your OP, and you can see it in the responses, is to give people an incorrect impression of how the information came to be released and the purpose of it, and to perpetuate the idea that LGBT folks in general and transgendered folks in particular should be ashamed of themselves and their appearance.
If you care about what I point out in #3, you need to do something about it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The OP is clearly upset about the release of the photo. There may have been a misunderstanding on how it was released but again the OP is clearly supportive of Manning. Are you outraged at those that support Manning?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I think you know exactly what Catherina's intentions were, in the OP and that there was nothing but decency and caring for another human being, as the motivation for that post.
I say thank goodness for EVERYONE who stands up for Manning.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Mocking, propaganda at it's worst. The intent is to cause harm to him, no matter what liberals think.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)This was a defense exhibit and released under a FOIA request.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)FACTS are to be avoided - in the same way a vampire avoids a crucifix.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts) rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Are you calling those that support Manning haters?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with US government/Obama administration is evil types.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it was an attempt to smear PFC Manning.
Only, as it turns out, the picture was introduced by the defense, and the picture was released because it was FOIA'd.
In other words, there was a lot of false and unwarranted outrage going on in this thread.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)just that supporting Manning? So the OP made a mistake about how the picture was released and was outraged that the picture was released and that Manning would be ridiculed. How is that a bad thing? How does that justify the "unwarranted outrage" shown by fellow DU posters here?
Looks to me like a righteous few saw an opportunity to attack a fellow poster in DU. A clearly unwarranted attack.
Somebody really misses their Meta.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also, note that his gender identity was presumed to be a smear, something that they said should have been kept secret.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That was a lie meant to hurt her. She is supportive of Manning and in no way a " fucking LGBT-phobe". That is no way for a "politically liberal" person to behave.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)comment go. The person that wrote the OP is a great person. She hates that people are using Manning to show bigotry against the transgendered. And yet there were at least two posters in this thread that viciously attacked her.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)This release and it's timing is just chickenshit.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)and not surprisingly, the military tries to shame him by betraying his confidence. Probably they think it is perfect payback. A secret revealed for a secret revealed. Cruel. Psy ops.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)It appears the defense released the photograph. And I am not sure whether it was meant to elicit sympathy or outrage. To me, it explains this young person's emotional state.
I think maybe for Bradley, one prison door opened even as another closed. And she is beautiful. And I salute her heroism.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)to see all the ever-so-enlightened grown-ups chastising you about transphobia this is some of the funniest shit...ever thanks 
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)OP misrepresented who released the photo and attributed motives for its release to people other than the defense team, the actual releaser. You may want to read the thread in full.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the fact the picture was released to expose Manning to ridicule. The OP did not justify the subsequent attack on her as a poster. She was mis-characterized as being a " fucking LGBT-phobe" and then condemned based on the mis-characterization.
The OP did not reflect that she was " fucking LGBT-phobe" and the poster that said that she was should be given a time-out.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)OMG lol. How great to see you! I can't phone out right now but please call me. Some of the funniest shit ever. Consider the sources lol. "The ever-so-enlightened grown-ups" one of whom personally erased from his mind that we were (ahem) allies during the first fight to get our Trans sisters and brothers accepted here. Some fucking ally. Now I see it was more about his dislike of 2 strong Feminists who dared criticize his hero than any principle. And others are known whatevers for reccing a post denigrating Glenn Greenwald for his homosexuality. I'm LMAO at the dishonest but transparent viciousness behind these attacks.
I'm so glad to see you here. Do you remember this thread that was so discussed in META for its problem with *the gay"? I have screen shots of the recs dating back to when there were 31 recs but some clever ones removed their recs after EarlG banned that poster. The "ever-so-enlightened grown-ups" ... LMAO with a huge hug. It's too funny to see certain people exposing themselves like this.
I love you sis. Can't wait for you to get down here. 
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i can't remember when we spoke last, but clearly the government's idea of "soon" is not the same as mine so...i am still waiting for the outcome.
i am having phone issues also (my earpiece does not work) and i misplaced my bluetooth headset the other day. so, i will call you in a few days...after i locate the damn bluetooth. Honey...you know, and I know, there has been a lot of racial, gender, sexual orientation b.s. here since we joined and since i KNOW you, i know you are not a phobe of any kind 
i just wish allies (cough) would give each other the benefit of doubt more often.
talk with you soon...and truly cannot wait to get the fuck outta here
Catherina
(35,568 posts)The person behind that was no ally lol, not in any way, shape or form. The good news is my LGBTIQ friends here nipped that vicious, deliberate fabrication in the bud and someone sent me screenshots of the deleted posts and other places on DU where that person was dropping their little grains of poison.
We can't wait to see you!