Chelsea Manning is a Hero
August 23, 2013

Today's big news story is that Wikileaks leaker Pfc. Manning would like to live out the rest of her life as Chelsea, and is no longer Bradley, he or him.

Cue barrage of ignorant comments.

Jezebel has kindly put together a guide for How Not to React to News That Bradley Manning is Transgender, which catalogues the most common mistakes made by those in the news media today...

It ends with, "Don't read any comments on anything today. Trust me on this."

-------

I guess this has already been discussed and isn't exactly breaking news, just another link.


Edited to comply with Posting news Articles & Quoting Guidelines

I am sorry, Marissa, but Manning is no "hero."  She violated her oath, she violated the trust that was placed in her, and she is a convicted and admitted criminal.

Perhaps, one day, she can redeem herself.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 20, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
I am sorry, Marissa, but Manning is no "hero."  She violated her oath, she violated the trust that was placed in her, and she is a convicted and admitted criminal.

Perhaps, one day, she can redeem herself.

I don't think there's anything honorable about wars. So no she's not a hero, no soldier is.

Edit: sorry if i seemed a little insulting or too snarky. I edited the post accordingly.

She is not the super criminal she is made out to be though. She just pissed off the USA that much.

Didn't mean to start a fight here, but that's how I see it, Jamie.  You see it differently obviously.  Not sure how her notoriety will affect the trans community but I think she deserves some support regardless.  I guess history will be the final judge.

~ Mara ~

Quote from: ZootAllures! on September 20, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
I don't think there's anything honorable about wars. So no she's not a hero, no soldier is.

Edit: sorry if i seemed a little insulting or too snarky. I edited the post accordingly.

She is not the super criminal she is made out to be though. She just pissed off the USA that much.

That's an opinion and should be stated as such, you phrase it as fact.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on September 20, 2013, 03:43:48 PM
That's an opinion and should be stated as such, you phrase it as fact.

Well sorry, but i'm only human and English is not my native tongue, and when it's late i may forget that some people want something to be phrased in a very specific way.

Actually, the coverage that bothered me the most was the sidebar in the Washington Post describing SRS in detail.

What has that got to do with Ms. Manning? Has she ever mentioned SRS? Further perpetuates the myth that transgender=SRS.

Quote from: ZootAllures! on September 20, 2013, 03:46:30 PM
Well sorry, but i'm only human and English is not my native tongue, and when it's late i may forget that some people want something to be phrased in a very specific way.

I don't know who you consider a hero, and you don't know who I consider a hero. Broadly stating that no soldier is a hero is a social faux pas.

he·roˈhi(ə)rō/noun1.a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.
"a war hero"

synonyms:brave person, brave man/woman, man/woman of courage, man/woman of the hour,lionheart, warrior, knight; 

2.another term for submarine sandwich.

Further, instead of saying you're tired and blaming others for wanting to hear things a certain way, why don't you just try saying "Yeah, I was pretty rude back there?"

Quote from: Marissa on September 20, 2013, 03:19:47 PM
Didn't mean to start a fight here, but that's how I see it, Jamie.  You see it differently obviously.  Not sure how her notoriety will affect the trans community but I think she deserves some support regardless.  I guess history will be the final judge.

~ Mara ~

I fully desire that Manning be allowed those natural and human rights that should be afforded to all people, even those in prison.  I understand your position; however, "hero" (or "heroine") is a superlative that should be reserved for those who accomplish great things.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM
I fully desire that Manning be allowed those natural and human rights that should be afforded to all people, even those in prison.  I understand your position; however, "hero" (or "heroine") is a superlative that should be reserved for those who accomplish great things.

Thanks for the clarification.  I respect your opinion even if I don't share it.

~ Mara ~

Quote from: ZootAllures! on September 20, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
I don't think there's anything honorable about wars. So no she's not a hero, no soldier is.

I have no problem with pacifism.  In fact, I took an oath to defend my fellow citizens' right to enjoy peace, and to protect that right with my life, if necessary.

Thanks for the kick in the teeth to all those who serve their countries in good faith.

Oh, and if your command of English is so poor that you use it as an excuse when you openly insult people, then may I suggest that you take some language lessons so you can behave in a more civil and responsible way?

Recently, prior to pfc manning coming out, I've noticed transgender issues grabbing more positive headlines in the mainstream media than I feel it used to.

I fear that pfc manning will provide a tool for people working against LGBT rights to demonize transgender people.

Finally, I do not agree with calling pfc manning a hero as she made an oath and when potentially questioning activities of the US government, failed to seek proper channels that are intended to protect her from breaking that oath, in turn protecting the lives of US personnel and others.

Quote from: EllieLove on September 20, 2013, 11:54:31 PM
Recently, prior to pfc manning coming out, I've noticed transgender issues grabbing more positive headlines in the mainstream media than I feel it used to.

I fear that pfc manning will provide a tool for people working against LGBT rights to demonize transgender people.

Finally, I do not agree with calling pfc manning a hero as he made an oath and when potentially questioning activities of the US government, he failed to seek proper channels that are intended to protect him from breaking that oath, in turn protecting the lives of US personnel and their allies.

EllieLove, please do not miss pronoun people who identify as transgender, no matter what their circumstance may be.

Cindy
Global Moderator

Quote from: Cindy on September 21, 2013, 12:43:06 AM


EllieLove, please do not miss pronoun people who identify as transgender, no matter what their circumstance may be.

Cindy
Global Moderator

Edited. Thanks for notifying me

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on September 20, 2013, 05:04:01 PM
2.another term for submarine sandwich.

I think I could agree that Ms. Manning is a sandwich.

The other? No way. She has no integrity, which is something people entrusted with secrets need. There were proper channels to use for whistleblowing. I am personally convinced she acted out of spite against the military, which is quite the opposite of "hero."

I agree she is a hero, If you sit there and say how she's a traitor then your an apologist for hypocrites and war criminals and frankly your no better, as that is what she revealed. She never endangered anyone even her persecutors couldn't prove that. her crime was the embarrass the elite.

The US government criticised the Taliban time and again for gunning down children, first responders and journalists... and rightly so those are clear violations of the Geneva convention.
But the US and it's armed forces clearly are no better.

Quote from: pebbles on September 23, 2013, 01:48:44 AM
I agree she is a hero, If you sit there and say how she's a traitor then your an apologist for hypocrites and war criminals and frankly your no better, as that is what she revealed. She never endangered anyone even her persecutors couldn't prove that. her crime was the embarrass the elite.

The US government criticised the Taliban time and again for gunning down children, first responders and journalists... and rightly so those are clear violations of the Geneva convention.
But the US and it's armed forces clearly are no better.

+1 million cookies

I'm mixed on this and have often rocked back and forth on the issue. On the one hand, she exposed things that needed to get out and I'm happy that we are aware of the facts on the ground.  She is a hero in the sense that she exposed terrible things that she hoped would enlighten the public.   In that aspect, I'm with her.  On the other hand, she released over 700,000 documents without having read all of the data.  In my view, that's a bit reckless because it had the potential to do harm.  At the end of the day, there is a reason some information is classified even if the government is secretive about a lot of things that should see the light of day.  If she didn't know what was in every released document, then that is a bit careless despite her intentions to do good. While it didn't cause any measurable harm to anyone in this particular case. it had the potential to do so.  Therefore, I do like that she took a stand to expose things that were clearly wrong, but I don't care for how she did it.  For me, it's not about the leak, but how the leaks were handled. Regardless, no harm was done and she did expose things that should have been known, so I refuse to call her a traitor nor do I think she deserves the harsh sentence she received.  I don't have the answers as this is complex situation, but my heart says to pardon her because she had good intentions, didn't hurt the U.S in a measurable way, and released things that should have seen the light of day. 

Personally, this is why I believe Whistleblower reform would be helpful.  Instead of having people act on their own, we could have a system with more checks and balances.  Sure, the proper channels do exist and Manning neglected to attempt them, but many reports have shown the military can be vindictive against those who even use the channels; therefore, I understand her hesitance to try and go through it.  However, a vigilante system is problematic and may have the potential to do harm. With a proper system, this can verify that the information being released is proper and wouldn't cause harm to anyone. 

Seriously, I wish the debate on Manning could be placed into a more productive conversation.  This shouldn't be so much about heroes and traitors more than it should be about us finding a way to hold our government accountable in a way that doesn't have the potential to jeopardize national security in any way.  Nothing is clear cut.  Furthermore, it's just as problematic to say those concerned about the implications that Manning's actions could have had are war criminals and hypocrites, as it is to say that Manning and her supporters are traitors for exposing those crimes.  It's not a black and white issue and wish people could see the extent of the issue without needing to vilify or idealize the character in question and attack people with legitimate concerns on either side of the issue.

Quote from: pebbles on September 23, 2013, 01:48:44 AM
I agree she is a hero, If you sit there and say how she's a traitor then your (sic) an apologist for hypocrites and war criminals and frankly your (sic) no better, as that is what she revealed. She never endangered anyone even her persecutors couldn't prove that. her crime was the (sic) embarrass the elite.

The US government criticised the Taliban time and again for gunning down children, first responders and journalists... and rightly so those are clear violations of the Geneva convention.
But the US and it's armed forces clearly are no better.

According to the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949, these are who are "protected persons":

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

And ...

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

And ...

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
LINK

Furthermore ...

Under customary law and the Third Geneva Convention (Art. 4), the guerrilla fighters of a Party to the conflict are entitled to combatant status, and therefore to prisoner-of-war status, only if they fulfill the following conditions: being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
LINK

This thought is expanded here:

First, what does it take to qualify as a prisoner of war? Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda[, Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, Hamas, Hezzbollah] qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria.

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

[They do] not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered "a person responsible for his subordinates," although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members [and others like them] openly flout the remaining three conditions.

[Unlawful combatants] deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a "fixed distinctive sign" and "carrying arms openly." Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the "laws and customs of war."

I will go even further.  When unlawful combatants hide and fight among those who should be considered considered non-combatants, they, in effect, militarize the civilians through the "fog of war."

If you are fretting over something like the Manning-leaked 12 July 2007 Baghdad helicopter strike, don't.  It was entirely justified and sanctioned under the "laws of war" (see Article 28 above).

Perhaps Manning had a similar misunderstanding, which led to her criminal activities.  Her actions diminish the credibility of the transgender community, in my opinion.

If you are going to call people "war criminals," then you need to know what you are talking about.