Quote from: learningtolive on August 22, 2013, 04:28:08 PM
For arguments sake, if Manning sued the government for the ability to transition by claiming it violated the 8th amendment and he won his case, wouldn't that have further implications?  Under selective incorporation the states have to follow the incorporated amendments in the bill or rights.  If it is deemed that denying treatment for this is cruel and unusual punishment, wouldn't other prisoners have the ability to use this case as a precedent to try and be covered for their transition?  Criminal law has never been my main interest, so I acknowledge I could be overlooking something.

It is unlikely that any civil action brought by Manning would be heard in the Federal courts, as Bradley is still, technically, in the military.  It is definitely not a State matter.

The Fifth Amendment requires that offenses in the armed forces be dealt with by military law.  The "Exemption Clause" in the Amendment reads.

... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

This is why in the military, you have no access to "bail."

Of course, Mr. Obama, as the putative commander-in-chief of the armed forces, could issue such an order, to supply Manning with HRT hormones or any other treatment.

Like Jamie said, military cases are not binding precedent, only persuasive. Let's say it does end up going to court, Manning's lawyers will likely try to use other persuasive cases, such as the one in Massachusetts (I think it was MA) allowing a MTF prisoner to transition. Manning being in a military prison would mean that it has to be brought under military rule since it's in military jurisdiction. Military law can get very confusing, it's something one needs to specialize in. Depending on what Manning is classified as, rules that would apply to ordinary (as in non-military prisoners) prisoners might not apply to him.

Seems like it could be an interesting law review article.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:05:53 PM

Seems like it could be an interesting law review article.

And I know just the guy to write it!!

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:05:53 PM
Like Jamie said, military cases are not binding precedent, only persuasive. Let's say it does end up going to court, Manning's lawyers will likely try to use other persuasive cases, such as the one in Massachusetts (I think it was MA) allowing a MTF prisoner to transition. Manning being in a military prison would mean that it has to be brought under military rule since it's in military jurisdiction. Military law can get very confusing, it's something one needs to specialize in. Depending on what Manning is classified as, rules that would apply to ordinary (as in non-military prisoners) prisoners might not apply to him.

Seems like it could be an interesting law review article.

Quote from: Jamie D on August 22, 2013, 04:58:00 PM
It is unlikely that any civil action brought by Manning would be heard in the Federal courts, as Bradley is still, technically, in the military.  It is definitely not a State matter.

The Fifth Amendment requires that offenses in the armed forces be dealt with by military law.  The "Exemption Clause" in the Amendment reads.

... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

This is why in the military, you have no access to "bail."

Of course, Mr. Obama, as the putative commander-in-chief of the armed forces, could issue such an order, to supply Manning with HRT hormones or any other treatment.

Admittedly, this is a weakness of mine.  As someone who studied political science and hopes to go to grad school, I feel a bit embarrassed about my limited knowledge in criminal law.

I do, however, have some follow up questions.  Could there be a reverse precedent set?  Let's say Manning was to sue and win her case, even if it is unlikely.  Could that decision be used as a precedent for non military prisoners who hope to transition in prison?   If she effectively uses the 8th amendment, could it be applied to non military prisoners. I was under the impression that it could be used, but I may be wrong. Also, if she doesn't have the same rights as regular prisoners, how would she argue effectively (or attempt at doing so) that she has the right for this treatment?  I keep hearing they would have to use the 8th amendment to make their case, but it appears that you are both saying that she likely doesn't have standing.  Personally, I would agree with that, but I'm curious about how else she would try to argue for it.

Hey, if you write a law review article, please let me know.  I'm a political science nerd who loves this stuff, even if I ignore legal issues more than I should,lol.

Edited to correct wrong pronouns.  No harm was intended as I did it unintentionally.

If I do write an article, I will post it.

I am not saying she doesn't have standing for a case, she certainly does. She could argue it's cruel and unusual by using other persuasive cases, like the one in MA and probably some from other countries or so, or see if there's some sort of rule that applied to the US military about treatment of prisoners with medical conditions. If Manning does win a case, it would be persuasive precedent if he won in the military court, it might be binding precedent if it was in the US Supreme Court (that would probably depend if they say the military needs to give Manning treatment based on the 8th Amendment or some other law/rule).

Any case can be used in legal arguments,  just not all of them are binding on the judge hearing the case.

Here's another article:
Life as a Transgender Woman in a Military Prison: What's Ahead for Chelsea Manning
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/life-transgender-woman-military-prison-whats-ahead-chelsea-manning/68613/
Source: The Atlantic Wire Author: Rebecca Greenfield

"How will Chelsea Manning's residency in a military facility affect her ongoing transition from male to female? Profoundly, because when it comes to medical issues of gender and identity, prison and military cultures still have a long way to go. In fact, Chelsea's residency in a military, rather than a civilian, facility will probably make her ongoing transition even more difficult. Below, an outline of the treatment Chelsea is likely to receive while serving her sentence. "


----------------------
Edit: Sorry! My brian is stuck!

I woke up to hear this in the news headlines this morning and immediately thought good on you Chelsea, but then I thought wait, this poor girl has a lot of supporters and also a lot people that would like to see her head on a pike, the news coverage that I've seen in Australia suggests that there are a few less supporters and many more haters.
I really don't want to get into a political debate (sorry learningtolive 🙂 ) but as people said at the beginning of the post this sort of high profile transitioning could have really positive and negative effects on peoples beliefs and opinions.

Quote from: Michelle G on August 22, 2013, 04:35:18 PM
I am really afraid after reading the comments in this article!!

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/latimes/posts/10151791220383010

So am I! Yes, there are a lot of dangerously ignorant complete #$@%*($#%($%@'s who say whatever they like because they can get away with it on the internet (I believe I just wrote the definition for trolling) in the world and I'm sure we've all met at least one if not more. These people can be very vocal and can unfortunately be very influential towards people that haven't yet made their mind up about something.
I guess what I am trying to say is they might use Chelsea's transition to create negative impressions of the trans community.

At the same time I'm sure a lot of people like me who just heard this on the news have just gone and read an article on transgender people and are a little bit more enlightened/aware/interested than they were yesterday.

Hopefully the later.

Either way, all the best for Chelsea and her transition

(Edit: I decided to remove a bit of more colourful language talking about trolls. Fill in the blanks! 🙂 )

 

It's Chelsea Manning. Misgendering will not be tolerated on this site, and no one should be usng male pronouns when referencing her.

Quote from: Ave on August 22, 2013, 04:36:53 PM
Personally I don't care either way for him but this strikes me as a famewhore move a la Snowden. Also, don't think for a second that the public thinks of these whistleblowers as anything less than tedious.

Manning sent letters to her therapist about being transgender before the leaks. She is taking the first opportunity she has to do this - Her trial just ended, and she is about to go to prison. Seems like a perfect time for her to bring all this up, I think.

And, for the record, Snowden is anything but a fame whore. He has refused all media interviews save one at the beginning to Hong Kong. There is a reason the only picture floating around of him on every news site is a still from that first video - that is all anyone has on him. He had a press conference after being a capsule hotel in Russia for over a month, and all he did was read from a prepared statement.

I don't consider Manning a whistle blower per se, but Snowden certainly is. Many people do not find it 'tedious' to find out issues the government is lying about.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on August 22, 2013, 06:19:12 PM


It's Chelsea Manning. Misgendering will not be tolerated on this site, and no one should be usng male pronouns when referencing her.

Thanks for the reminder.  It was done unintentionally on my part, and I corrected it. It's funny for somebody whose sensitive myself about using the correct pronouns, I now see how it can be difficult to correct yourself and catch misgenders when you had a different perception of a person a few hours earlier.  Anyone who read my unedited post, forgive me for using the wrong pronouns without catching it. 

Quote from: cynths on August 22, 2013, 06:11:01 PM
I woke up to hear this in the news headlines this morning and immediately thought good on you Chelsea, but then I thought wait, this poor girl has a lot of supporters and also a lot people that would like to see her head on a pike, the news coverage that I've seen in Australia suggests that there are a few less supporters and many more haters.
SNIP

I believe it is inaccurate to paint those who felt justice was done in this case as "haters."  That is almost as absurd as labeling Manning supporters as "anarchists."

The military justice system is not "unjust."  It is just different from the civil and criminal justice systems, for reasons that were plainly obvious to those who fought for the foundation of the US, as well as in the following generations.  It has different procedures and rules.  But is no less just.

The US military justice system is authorized in the Constitution, and is vested in the power of Congress to organize, raise, and support the military, and in the President's role as C-in-C.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:57:29 PM
If I do write an article, I will post it.

I am not saying she doesn't have standing for a case, she certainly does. She could argue it's cruel and unusual by using other persuasive cases, like the one in MA and probably some from other countries or so, or see if there's some sort of rule that applied to the US military about treatment of prisoners with medical conditions. If Manning does win a case, it would be persuasive precedent if he won in the military court, it might be binding precedent if it was in the US Supreme Court (that would probably depend if they say the military needs to give Manning treatment based on the 8th Amendment or some other law/rule).

My guess is that any Federal Court would look at the case and say, "This is a military matter and does not belong here."

Quote----------------------
Edit: Sorry! My brian is stuck!

Who's "Brian"?  And why is he stuck??

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:57:29 PM
If I do write an article, I will post it.

I am not saying she doesn't have standing for a case, she certainly does. She could argue it's cruel and unusual by using other persuasive cases, like the one in MA and probably some from other countries or so, or see if there's some sort of rule that applied to the US military about treatment of prisoners with medical conditions. If Manning does win a case, it would be persuasive precedent if he won in the military court, it might be binding precedent if it was in the US Supreme Court (that would probably depend if they say the military needs to give Manning treatment based on the 8th Amendment or some other law/rule).

Any case can be used in legal arguments,  just not all of them are binding on the judge hearing the case.

Here's another article:
Life as a Transgender Woman in a Military Prison: What's Ahead for Chelsea Manning
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/life-transgender-woman-military-prison-whats-ahead-chelsea-manning/68613/
Source: The Atlantic Wire Author: Rebecca Greenfield

"How will Chelsea Manning's residency in a military facility affect her ongoing transition from male to female? Profoundly, because when it comes to medical issues of gender and identity, prison and military cultures still have a long way to go. In fact, Chelsea's residency in a military, rather than a civilian, facility will probably make her ongoing transition even more difficult. Below, an outline of the treatment Chelsea is likely to receive while serving her sentence. "


----------------------
Edit: Sorry! My brian is stuck!

Thanks for the follow up.  I see what you're saying.  It would be interesting if this case made it to the Supreme Court, but I don't see that happening.  I'm going to have to do some research tonight to figure out the whole legal logistics involved in this particualr situation.  Should make for some long, tedious and fun research! 🙂

Chelsea Manning: Testing The Military On Transgender Issues
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/22/214516215/chelsea-manning-testing-the-military-on-transgender-issues
Author: Eyder Peralta Source: NPR

"Today, when Manning announced that he wants to be known as Chelsea Manning, it became clear that the subtext would become the focus and that Manning will now likely test military policy on transgender issues. . . Belkin said that like they do for people suffering with asthma, the military has medical regulations that list being a "transexual" as an "unallowable medical condition.""

"Herman says that as far as veterans are concerned, that may be changing. "The [Veteran's Administration] system has over the past few years — since 2011 — been working hard to increase cultural competency... they've been working to improve health care delivery for transgendered people in the VA system," Herman said."

🙁 I feel so bad for her, I will be honest I've never given a huge amount of thought to trans persons in prison, but given how horrifyingly fascist the US government has become and the enormous miscarriage of justice that's happened. with this injustice this is making me re-evaluate my views in a big way.

Quote from: cynths on August 22, 2013, 06:11:01 PM
I woke up to hear this in the news headlines this morning and immediately thought good on you Chelsea, but then I thought wait, this poor girl has a lot of supporters and also a lot people that would like to see her head on a pike, the news coverage that I've seen in Australia suggests that there are a few less supporters and many more haters.
I really don't want to get into a political debate (sorry learningtolive 🙂 ) but as people said at the beginning of the post this sort of high profile transitioning could have really positive and negative effects on peoples beliefs and opinions.

So am I! Yes, there are a lot of dangerously ignorant complete #$@%*($#%($%@'s who say whatever they like because they can get away with it on the internet (I believe I just wrote the definition for trolling) in the world and I'm sure we've all met at least one if not more. These people can be very vocal and can unfortunately be very influential towards people that haven't yet made their mind up about something.
I guess what I am trying to say is they might use Chelsea's transition to create negative impressions of the trans community.

At the same time I'm sure a lot of people like me who just heard this on the news have just gone and read an article on transgender people and are a little bit more enlightened/aware/interested than they were yesterday.

Hopefully the later.

Either way, all the best for Chelsea and her transition

(Edit: I decided to remove a bit of more colourful language talking about trolls. Fill in the blanks! 🙂 )

That's all right, Cynth.  As a veteran of the US armed forces, I did not like what Chelsea did.  Whether it was leaking to the media or giving it to the Chinese, makes no difference to me.  Her transitioning may have some detrimental effects on us, even though she had sought it before the leaking.  Gay people have rights in the military as seen the other day when a gay sailor on a submarine proposed to his boyfriend at the end of the cruise right on the dock.  We do not have the right to stay in the military and transition as of yet.  Despite the 30 year sentence, the local expert laywer wags has stated that she may be out in 7-8 years on good behavior.

  Joelene

Quote from: Anna! on August 22, 2013, 01:13:11 PM
"Why does she get transition paid for but I have to pay for it myself?".  I'm not sure how I want things to go here, but I think I would like it best if she was allowed HRT but had to pay for it herself (the same goes for medical treatments to other inmates, too! )

When a person is a inmate of the State, the State is responsible for their living and health, but if your a free person, then you are responsible for your own living and health, you are free to do as you please.
Chelsea Manning is an inmate, the State is responsible for her health, she suffers from Gender Dysphoria, the State has to pay for her treatment, that's the way things are, its a good time for her, if things go well for her, she could be eligible for parole when her transition is complete, it would be a new start and a 2nd chance at life and happiness, leaving her old life behind that brought her so much grief and unhappiness, everybody deserves a 2nd chance.

Quote from: pretty pauline on August 23, 2013, 08:39:26 AM
When a person is a inmate of the State, the State is responsible for their living and health, but if your a free person, then you are responsible for your own living and health, you are free to do as you please.
Chelsea Manning is an inmate, the State is responsible for her health, she suffers from Gender Dysphoria, the State has to pay for her treatment, that's the way things are, its a good time for her, if things go well for her, she could be eligible for parole when her transition is complete, it would be a new start and a 2nd chance at life and happiness, leaving her old life behind that brought her so much grief and unhappiness, everybody deserves a 2nd chance.

Yeah, that all makes sense.  Last I heard she probably wouldn't get treatment, though .

A full presidential pardon would solve SO many complications right now. I'll just go hold my breath while I wait for that.

Quote from: dalebert on August 23, 2013, 09:15:14 AM
A full presidential pardon would solve SO many complications right now. I'll just go hold my breath while I wait for that.

Ah, Dalebert, I think you're turning blue!  😮

Fair point guys, to say the least this case brought up many issues which is obvious. Also I try not to get involved with other countries politics as I'm sure I haven't seen the full picture only what I can glean from the media (except when it's obvious like Russia right now with their anti-gay laws, WTF?!), so I'll bite my tongue.
IMO though, regardless of which and how she was convicted, Chelsea still has basic human rights and not being able to address her GD could be likened to torture as I'm sure we can all empathise.

Love the comments section

"Er I don't wan't to pay fer da freaks hormones dis is 'Murica!"

That's what you are worried about paying for? A prescription? These people seriously need to get their taxpayer complaint priorities straight.