Trans Treason: Why Chelsea Manning is no hero for trans soldiers

[brooklynite]

Slate:

Brynn Tannehill is a former Navy helicopter pilot who condemns the actions of Bradley—now Chelsea—Manning. Tannehill used to fly naval attack helicopters, not entirely unlike the Apache helicopters shown in “Collateral Murder,” the video Manning sent to WikiLeaks revealing U.S. air strikes in Baghdad that left two Reuters journalists and a number of unarmed people dead. But after working as a pilot and analyst over 10 years and four deployments, Tannehill had to drop out of the military in 2010, when she began transitioning from a man to a woman.

Tannehill, who is now the director of advocacy at SPART*A, an organization that advocates for the rights of trans men and women serving in the military, worries Manning’s actions reflect badly on trans service members. “If you’re wondering if she’s being embraced as a hero in the military trans community, she is absolutely not,” Tannehill says. “People in our group can empathize with the strain that being transgender and closeted in the military causes, but we do not in any way, shape, or form think this excuses or mitigates what she did.”

...snip...

Chelsea Manning’s coming out as a woman does not automatically make her a heroic figure—for that, trans service members already have Kristin Beck, who served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years and was a member of SEAL Team 6. Indeed, some members of the trans community took strong exception to the way Manning’s legal team coopted gender dysphoria for her defense. Jacob Eleazer, a SPART*A chapter leader, was one. He counsels trans service members through a secretive online group where members can seek legal advice and support. Eleazer objected to the defense’s argument that Manning’s gender dysphoria contributed to giving up thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. “It’s appropriate for the defense to zealously do everything that they can in order to defend their client, but I also see where that defense is problematic for the trans community in general,” he says. “We have a lot of trans people serving right now, and they aren’t committing treason.”

[msanthrope]

1. The defense's use of GID as a mitgation was a controversial move. I don't know that I

would have used that.

[KittyWampus]

2. It -could- potentially help in reducing the time Manning is incarcerated. Regarding the OP-

I appreciate reading alternative perspectives.

[msanthrope]

4. I'm not sure if it did that. I note that the largest gay-rights legal defense

organizations (OutServe and SLDN, now merged) did not support Manning and were not happy about the GID defense.

I think it was a mistake, bringing up the issue as early as the Article 32 hearing. And I think that contributed to the decision to forego a jury.

Of course, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. Knocking out the most serious charge was a victory, and the sentence is certainly mitigated.

[grantcart]

6. I can't help that she is getting advice from people that are more interested in her as a symbol than

as a person.

I was surprised in listening to her attorney characterize her position as not being regretful on the volume and rather indiscriminate method of downloading material and then in the next sentence state that he expects her to be pardoned.

I would have thought that if you are laying groundwork for a pardon you would want to at least acknowledge that passing files that you had not even read was not a prudent act and that Chelsea would not have repeated that again.

[msanthrope]

9. You know...speaking of people interetsted in her, a certain post by another DUer

brought home to me just how many people are involved in this---


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023505389#post51


Can you imagine---75% of the money collected for her defense was not used for legal fees. I should make a separate OP about what Luminous Animal posted, it's pretty shocking.

[grantcart]

12. Wow. If it was collected for "Fund to Free Chelsea Manning" I could understand it.

But a clearly titled "Defense Fund"?

Really makes me kind of sick.

She should get another attorney sue them for misappropriation of funds and get the money for her sex reassignment surgery.

[msanthrope]

18. Well, someone got 1.2 million, and it wasn't Manning or her attorney.

Now, if you note, there's an actual IOLTA defense fund that is controlled by law, and goes directly to Manning's attorney. It can be used for the appeal process, and the remains given to Manning upon her release...this fund got about 50k in donations, including 15k from wikileaks***

Courage to Resist, however, maintained their own 'Defense' fund, that garnered about 1.2 million so far...with about 25% of that going to legal fees. I'd like the specifics on that accounting, but it sounds pretty Ponzi scheme to me.




***Let's not even start about the millions Wiki raised on Manning's back....they gave a paltry 15k to her defense fund.

[Synthesize]

45. Mitigation for the defense....

... is trouble for everyone else.

[Cha]

3. Different perspective.. thanks for the link, brooklynite

Way different perspective..

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. “We have a lot of trans people serving right now, and they aren’t committing treason.”

Neither was Manning, of course.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Of course Manning was committing treason.

By all means argue that it was the morally right thing to do.

But, whichever way you slice it, releasing tens of thousands of classified documents *whose contents you do not know* is treason.

The argument that Manning was a whistleblower is bilge. Whistleblowing is when you find evidence of wrongdoing and release *that evidence*, not when you release vast quantities of classified data on the grounds that it might, perhaps, contain evidence of wrongdoing.

What Manning did was treason, and, while her sentence does strike me as excessive, I think a significant jail term was appropriate.

[truebluegreen]

10. If it was treason, why was Manning neither charged nor convicted of it?

Just answer me that.

[frylock]

14. they never answer. they just move to the next thread and throw that word out there..

like they know what it means.

[truebluegreen]

40. +100

[phleshdef]

22. Theres treason in the legal sense and treason in the general sense.

Many service members feel that Manning's document dump was treasonous, even if not in the literal legal sense. They have the right to feel that way and I see where they are coming from.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Presumably because they chose other, equivalent charges. N.T.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. Wouldn't equivalent charges need to have the possibility of the death penalty, as treason does?

[truebluegreen]

39. Nice try. There is no equivalent charge. It is treason, or it isn't.

[jmowreader]

44. Because Manning couldn't have been

There is no punitive article called Treason, and military courts are restricted to trying you for crimes described in the UCMJ.

The UCMJ also prescribes a 20-year sentence for each act of oral sex...I think a 69 is punishable by death.

[MNBrewer]

37. treason? Only in your wishful thinking.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Manning was not even charged with treason, much less convicted of treason, so this writer has some

accuracy issues or a need for hyperbolic grandstanding that makes the rest of the material questionable. I'm really sick of the hurling of that simply inapplicable term. Manning was convicted of charges serious enough to leave unembellished and unexaggerated.

[msanthrope]

11. Well, "aiding the enemy" is the military charge analogous to treason, but I agree with you, the

word "treason" does not appear in the charge itself.

[ljm2002]

16. The charge of "aiding the enemy" was also dropped. n/t

[msanthrope]

19. No--it was not dropped. He was found not guilty. nt

[ljm2002]

21. Sorry, my mistake...

...you are correct.

However, she was found Not Guilty of "aiding the enemy".

Which means... wait for it... She was not guilty of aiding the enemy, and thus by your reasoning, was not guilty of the "military charge analogous to treason".

[msanthrope]

25. Yes, you are correct. nt

[brooklynite]

17. No different than freely using the term "whistleblower"...

...even though Manning didn't act in compliance with the Whistleblower protection laws.

[bluestate10]

20. I don't think Mannning is guilty of treason regardless of how the charge was worded.

Highlighting the killing of reporters and innocent people, even if those killings was a mistake is not treason, IMO. Maybe Manning didn't think military brass would take the killings seriously when the decision to send the information to Wikileaks was made. The debacle with handling of sexual assaults in the military is exhibit #1 of how tone deaf military brass can be in the absence of external heat.

[bullwinkle428]

23. GREAT point regarding how poorly the military has handled the sexual

assault issue. Who knows what kind of shit Manning had to deal with and how she might have felt when it came to revealing something up the chain of command.

[msanthrope]

24. But he didn't just release the video--he released hundred of thousands of documents, unread.

He put software on government computers. He performed searches on military databases for Assange.

Take a look at the charges he was convicted of beyond the helicopter video.....Manning might do the full ride on some of those.

And he's still facing criminal federal charges....a fact that DU doesn't often want to hear.

[Raine1967]

29. I wasn't aware of that last part.

Is it safe to assume they are federal civilian charges and what are they?

[msanthrope]

33. Here's the thing--there's a federal grand jury sitting in the rocket docket of VA.

It's been sitting a while, and from time to time issues subpoenas and the like.

If you look at the charges the military filed against Manning, they do not cover the actions she took while in America, on leave, during January and February 2010. During those two weeks, Manning apparently met up with a quite a few people in the Cambridge area who are supposedly connected to Wikileaks.

And look at what her own attorney says here---note Coombs is talking about the Justice Department....not the military.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023522445

I'd look for co-conspirator charges. He can definitely be indicted for those.

[Raine1967]

42. Wow. I missed that thread.

Thanks for the explanation.

I hadn't put those things together.

[bluestate10]

13. The writer was focused on how Trans people in the military and those that served and are out

view Manning. The writer used treason only because that is how some Trans military people view Manning, the people that commented for the article view Manning as a traitor. I am not sure Manning is a traitor, every soldier has a responsibility to shed light on wrong doing. I may disagree with the route that Manning took, but I wasn't in Manning's shoes looking at how upper brass would react to disclosures brought to them.

[Whisp]

15. I think some, too many, are using Chelsea's sexuality

as a bludgeon against the stasi-bot authoritarian obama-bots.
Same with Glenn Greenwald's sexuality. It's quite obvious that not all support is honest. I call GG a scamming liar becuase of his character, not for anything else - but that isn't accepted here by many - there has to be some deeper ulterior motive.

If you look back on the list of people that have continually and consistently found fault and no good with this administration, for years now, you will find they are the loudest to call people homophobes and transphobes when given the opportunity to wield that tool.

[bluestate10]

26. I got a post deleted today for my insistence that Manning is a man until he changes

his sex to become a woman. I still hold that view. There are some on DU that see hate in that view. I don't hate Gay or Trans people and feel that each has the right to live the life that nature endowed them with, free of any discrimination.

I also don't think that Manning is a traitor for disclosing a horrific act that likely would have been sweep under a carpet had it not been for Manning's actions. I do think the disclosure path that Manning took was wrong but I also feel that the military should fucking fix it's system so that soldiers can come forward with evidence of wrongdoing and know that military brass will treat the disclosures with the investigative rigor that they deserve and not take punitive actions against the soldiers making the disclosures. Our conscience is a closely personal matter, we might be driven to take action only to have that action proven inappropriate once a thorough investigation is done, but we shouldn't face penalties for exercising our conscience unless we do it routinely and in wild ways.

[DontTreadOnMe]

28. I agree with everything you stated, and have been labeled transphobics as well

Chelsea Manning contacted WikiLeaks well before releasing ANY information, in fact the contact was made in the first two weeks of her assignment in the Middle East. She had an agenda to "release" information... and she did is recklessly.

And she was convicted of espionage.

Oh, it wasn't treason? Espionage is not a serious enough crime?

The disclosure path manning used.. was found to be criminal.

[leftstreet]

30. That's not your decision to make

FFS why is this so hard for people to get?

Manning has REQUESTED the change in references

Manning doesn't need anyone's approval or permission

[brooklynite]

38. Actually he does...

All his current identity documents identify him at" Bradley", a male. The prison system will treat himas a male until such time as he is officially designated otherwise. He may call himself whatever he wants, but he'll have to go through legal channels to be recognized officially as female.

Now, the immediate issue is whether he should be publicly acknowledged as female (and named Chelsea) as a matter of respect and courtesy. The issue I see here is, does that respect come automatically, or is it a facet of some people believing his actions were honorable, and thus believing s/he is due that respect? Would the same wish be granted if made by the teenager who killed the 88 year old Vet? Or a bank President? Or someone from the Bush Administration? I'm not so sure.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. I'm glad your post was deleted. A person's sexuality is theirs and is not up for public criticism.

We are all equally entitled to an opinion even if that opinion happens to be completely and utterly absurd.

[markpkessinger]

35. I think you should back up your claim with documentary evidence . . .

. . . or else withdraw it. I, for one, have been quite vocal in my opposition to the administration's stance on surveillance and its war on whistleblowers. I also, just today, defended people who may have been a bit slow to pick up on Manning's request to be known as the woman, Chelsea Manning. And I'm gay to boot.

[Just Saying]

36. Excellent post.

Chelsea is free to change her name and live as she chooses but she will do so as a convicted felon and I do not agree with what she did. People can respect Chelsea as a transgender person and still believe she committed crimes.

It's rather like calling anyone who doesn't like the President racist. Are there racists that hate Obama? Of course! But not everyone who disagrees with him is racist. And not everyone who disagrees with GG is homophobic. And not everyone that thinks Manning is guilty is transphobic.

IMO, there is a certain arrogance in those that would dump classified information thinking they should be the ultimate judge of what should be made public.

People are far too quick to label and pigeon-hole others here and it shuts down honest debate that could inform and educate. I actually come here to see other points of view!

[kelliekat44]

43. I've noticed that too. I heard on the radio today some really nasty comments coming from

people who identified themselves as members of the LBGT community. They offered up some of the most intolerant comments against the media commentators who were trying to have a balanced discussion about NSA. Three of the callers lashed out at the commentators for bringing up Manning's "gender identification" issues labeling the commentators as one or another "phobic" as many have done here. The commentators were merely pointing out that the main reason that gender ID entered into the conversation about Manning at all was because HIS OWN DEFENSE TEAM INTRODUCED THE ISSUE as part of his stress defense. It just struck me as hypocrisy for some members of the LBGT community--including some from among the media--are so quick to name call people who even discuss the facts of this case as being homophobic or transphobic. And some of the nastiest comments about an individual's religion have come from this same group of people. I really think they do more harm than good for themselves and the LGBT community.

[titaniumsalute]

27. Oh for Christ's sake really?

I forget what year it is on checks until about February each year...does that make me a bad person with numbers? No. We've been talking about Bradley Manning for months now and he decided is a she now. Probably 2/3rds of the people don't even know about the change.

DU is becoming the most uptight fucking place on the planet. I'm going to the bar with my liberal friends now. See ya!

[snooper2]

34. bucking a meme with an OP

how dare you

[Number23]

46. Even though this group like many Americans disagree with Manning's actions

I hope that they will still be part of the support group for Manning's transition.

The U.S. military doesn’t allow openly trans men and women to serve, even though it’s estimated that 20 percent of trans people have served, compared to 10 percent of the general U.S. population.

Wow!