[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]What a shame. I wonder if this would fall under cruel and unusual punishment. Last time I checked Gender Identity Disorder was a permanent medical disqualification for enlistment into the Army. If Manning's statement that he felt this way since a child was true the Army could just add fraudulent enlistment to the charges they already have against him for concealing a medical disqualification for the purpose of gaining entry into the Army. First of all, we don't know if he was diagnosed with GID as a child or as an adult. Second, there are many reasons transgender people don't come out right away. I, for instance, don't want to come out right away for the sake of my own safety. And then there are transgender people who have those feelings but either don't understand them and so dismiss them or just don't want to admit to being transgender. So while I guess she could be charged for fraudulent enlistment regardless, the situation isn't as straightforward as it seems.[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Oh, it has already been stated that the US Army, and by extension, the US Government, will not be giving Manning hormone therapy treatments or will he get an operation on the taxpayers dime. The brig at Leavenworth is run by the Department of Defense, not the Bureau of Prisons.
ad1x2
Bradley Manning gets 35 years for leaks, now wants to be 'Chelsea' Manning
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]What a shame. I wonder if this would fall under cruel and unusual punishment.TerryCrewLast time I checked Gender Identity Disorder was a permanent medical disqualification for enlistment into the Army. If Manning's statement that he felt this way since a child was true the Army could just add fraudulent enlistment to the charges they already have against him for concealing a medical disqualification for the purpose of gaining entry into the Army. How bad is lying to uncle sam an enlisting? Been thinking about "forgetting" about my asthma and doing 4 years. Maximum punishment is a Dishonorable Discharge and two years behind bars. Also, when it comes to something like asthma it isn't just about you. If you have an asthma attack while on a patrol you just put your squad in more danger because now they have to extract you out of the killzone.
I have the perfect solution to this. He should pay for it himself. If he really wants the tax payers to pay for it, he must sign over his body to the rest of his inmates. They should then be allowed to have their way with him anytime, anywhere, anyway. Boom problem solved, and more than one way to go about it too!
[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]What a shame. I wonder if this would fall under cruel and unusual punishment.ghoklebutterLast time I checked Gender Identity Disorder was a permanent medical disqualification for enlistment into the Army. If Manning's statement that he felt this way since a child was true the Army could just add fraudulent enlistment to the charges they already have against him for concealing a medical disqualification for the purpose of gaining entry into the Army. First of all, we don't know if he was diagnosed with GID as a child or as an adult. Second, there are many reasons transgender people don't come out right away. I, for instance, don't want to come out right away for the sake of my own safety. And then there are transgender people who have those feelings but either don't understand them and so dismiss them or just don't want to admit to being transgender. So while I guess she could be charged for fraudulent enlistment regardless, the situation isn't as straightforward as it seems. We may not know if he was diagnosed since his medical records are protected from public release. However, your personal opinion on how people with GID should be treated or why he didn't come out isn't relevant to the situation. You are a civilian and are free to do whatever you want within the limits of the law. Private Bradley Manning is not a civilian, he is a Soldier in the United States Army and the Army does not allow people who identify as transgendered to serve.You can call it unfair or even bigoted. Fact of the matter is the military has the right to deny enlistment to anybody they consider a risk and can punish anybody who conceals a condition that may have been cause to deny them entry. I have nothing against anybody who wants to be transgendered. But they are not medically fit to serve just like people with diabetes or people who are blind are not permitted to serve. If you feel that is unfair you are free to write your Congressman.
[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]What a shame. I wonder if this would fall under cruel and unusual punishment.ghoklebutterLast time I checked Gender Identity Disorder was a permanent medical disqualification for enlistment into the Army. If Manning's statement that he felt this way since a child was true the Army could just add fraudulent enlistment to the charges they already have against him for concealing a medical disqualification for the purpose of gaining entry into the Army. First of all, we don't know if he was diagnosed with GID as a child or as an adult. Second, there are many reasons transgender people don't come out right away. I, for instance, don't want to come out right away for the sake of my own safety. And then there are transgender people who have those feelings but either don't understand them and so dismiss them or just don't want to admit to being transgender. So while I guess she could be charged for fraudulent enlistment regardless, the situation isn't as straightforward as it seems.You seem to be confusing civilians with the military. No one is forced to serve in the military....it's volunteer. And when you sign the contract you are agreeing to their rules and regulations.
[QUOTE="Jebus213"]
[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Outstanding. Now throw Manly Manning in gen-pop and let Darwin do the rest.
OrkHammer007
Â
You are a true American.
...and that's a bad thing because...?He's a traitor. He stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back because he "couldn't handle life in the Army." It wasn't exactly a picnic serving aboard a 'gator that was falling apart before my eyes, but I sure as f*** didn't throw my fellow sailors under the bus, even after the neglect on the ship cost me most of the sight in one eye.
Sorry... it's a traitor. I won't even dignify that subhuman piece of trash with a gender. It deserves a shiv in the execise yard, and no more.
Â
This man child really is a true American.
No surgery. He's in prison for a major crime for crying outloud. When did prisoners just get to do whatever they want to do? Unless a prisoner has a medical condition that requires surgery then they don't need nor deserve it. This guy is a complete loser. He lies by saying he didn't mean to hurt anyone, but at the same time claims he lashed out to hurt people because of DADT. Petulent douche. Now he's using this transgender thing to garner sympathy from people. Which is brilliant yet pathetic at the same time. Brilliant because claiming you're LGBT is one of the best ways to gain sympathy and praise. Pathetic because he's using it to save his own skin.
I was wondering when we were going the classy route of focusing on his sexuality. *sigh* Character over content: the American way.thebest31406Because everyone who posts in OT is American amirite?:roll:
I was wondering when we were going the classy route of focusing on his sexuality. *sigh* Character over content: the American way.thebest31406To be fair, both Private Manning and his lawyer tried to use his gender identity disorder and the fact that was gay as excuses for what he did. Which goes against what many of his supporters think, that he is some hero who put it all on the line to expose war crimes and corruption.
[QUOTE="thebest31406"]I was wondering when we were going the classy route of focusing on his sexuality. *sigh* Character over content: the American way.ad1x2To be fair, both Private Manning and his lawyer tried to use his gender identity disorder and the fact that was gay as excuses for what he did. Which goes against what many of his supporters think, that he is some hero who put it all on the line to expose war crimes and corruption. I know. I wonder why they defend him when he makes it the justification for criminal behavior.Â
[QUOTE="Jag85"]
[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]
So much stupid in this post....
Anyone who doesn't think war is horrible is likely too young to even understand what the concept of war is....
And yeah, all of us 'Mericans just wanna grab a M16 and shoot us some towelheads! :roll:
Seriously the amount of racism against Americans that just gets accepted around here is disgusting. How about we start judging other countries based on their worst common denominator considered everyone likes to act like Americans are all big dumb gun loving hicks?
WhiteKnight77
No, American nationalists are just butt-hurt that Prviate Bradley Manning helped expose your country's genocidal war crimes in Iraq...
If Americans truly understand how "horrible" war is, then why did so many of them support wars and policies that led to the extermination of millions of Iraqis over the past two decades?Â
Sorry, but if there's any "racism" here, it's from the American nationalists who supported their government's actions in Iraq...
Where is the proof of the statistics you are quoting? Â You are making the claim, now it's time to back it up.Â
Glad you asked...
Â
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-genocide-against-iraq-1990-2012-killed-3-3-million-including-750000-children/5314461
"US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children
Statement by Professor Francis Boyle, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were exterminated by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. obstinately insisted that their sanctions remain in place until after the illegal Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UKs Tony Blair in March, 2003, not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children but to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people, Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis as a direct result of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyles class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The grossly hypocritical UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organizations Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.
Albrights shocking response provides proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including Destroying World Order (Clarity Press.)"
Â
Even if we were to be generous and half that figure, that's still millions of Iraqis killed by your government. So, are you going to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game now? Or are you finally going to have the guts to condemn your government's actions in Iraq? If Hitler were alive today, he'd be proud of just how much America is following in his footsteps...
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
[QUOTE="Jag85"]
No, American nationalists are just butt-hurt that Prviate Bradley Manning helped expose your country's genocidal war crimes in Iraq...
If Americans truly understand how "horrible" war is, then why did so many of them support wars and policies that led to the extermination of millions of Iraqis over the past two decades?Â
Sorry, but if there's any "racism" here, it's from the American nationalists who supported their government's actions in Iraq...
Jag85
Where is the proof of the statistics you are quoting? Â You are making the claim, now it's time to back it up.Â
Glad you asked...
Â
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-genocide-against-iraq-1990-2012-killed-3-3-million-including-750000-children/5314461
"US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children
Statement by Professor Francis Boyle, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were exterminated by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. obstinately insisted that their sanctions remain in place until after the illegal Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UKs Tony Blair in March, 2003, not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children but to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people, Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis as a direct result of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyles class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The grossly hypocritical UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organizations Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.
Albrights shocking response provides proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including Destroying World Order (Clarity Press.)"
Â
Even if we were to be generous and half that figure, that's still millions of Iraqis killed by your government. So, are you going to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game now? Or are you finally going to have the guts to condemn your government's actions in Iraq? If Hitler were alive today, he'd be proud of just how much America is following in his footsteps...
Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.
[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Where is the proof of the statistics you are quoting? Â You are making the claim, now it's time to back it up.Â
LJS9502_basic
Glad you asked...
Â
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-genocide-against-iraq-1990-2012-killed-3-3-million-including-750000-children/5314461
"US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children
Statement by Professor Francis Boyle, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were exterminated by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. obstinately insisted that their sanctions remain in place until after the illegal Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UKs Tony Blair in March, 2003, not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children but to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people, Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis as a direct result of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyles class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The grossly hypocritical UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organizations Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.
Albrights shocking response provides proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including Destroying World Order (Clarity Press.)"
Â
Even if we were to be generous and half that figure, that's still millions of Iraqis killed by your government. So, are you going to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game now? Or are you finally going to have the guts to condemn your government's actions in Iraq? If Hitler were alive today, he'd be proud of just how much America is following in his footsteps...
Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.That and the fact that he is missing the fact that it was the UN that placed sanctions on Iraq, that Hussein agreed to, and not the US or Britain. It was also Hussein that withheld the food and medicine from his people that resulted in all those deaths. The Hussein used any money that Iraq goot through the food for oil program to build new palaces during the years that sanctions were in place. That professor isn't as smart as he thinks he is when he blatantly ignores all the facts and same with Jag85.Â
[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Where is the proof of the statistics you are quoting? Â You are making the claim, now it's time to back it up.Â
LJS9502_basic
Glad you asked...
Â
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-genocide-against-iraq-1990-2012-killed-3-3-million-including-750000-children/5314461
"US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children
Statement by Professor Francis Boyle, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were exterminated by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. obstinately insisted that their sanctions remain in place until after the illegal Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UKs Tony Blair in March, 2003, not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children but to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people, Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis as a direct result of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyles class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The grossly hypocritical UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organizations Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.
Albrights shocking response provides proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including Destroying World Order (Clarity Press.)"
Â
Even if we were to be generous and half that figure, that's still millions of Iraqis killed by your government. So, are you going to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game now? Or are you finally going to have the guts to condemn your government's actions in Iraq? If Hitler were alive today, he'd be proud of just how much America is following in his footsteps...
Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.Oh, so it looks like you do want to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game after all...
In that case, what would you consider to be "something reputable"? Are you telling me international law professor Francis Boyle is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a "reputable" source? Or is your idea of "reputable" an American propaganda mouth-piece like CNN or Fox News?
Like I already said above, even if I were to be generous by quoting low estimates, the total death toll would still be in the millions. There is no possible way for the total death toll from the Gulf War + UN Sanctions + Iraq War to be anything less than a million, no matter how hard you try to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game...
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is guilty for crimes against humanity. How much longer are you going to deny the obvious facts?
Good for her - barring the fact that she's going to prison, of course. I hope she isn't placed among men.ghoklebutter
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Good for her - barring the fact that she's going to prison, of course. I hope she isn't placed among men.WhiteKnight77
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
I wouldn't refer to prison rape as "conjugal."[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.Jag85
Oh, so it looks like you do want to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game after all...
In that case, what would you consider to be "something reputable"? Are you telling me international law professor Francis Boyle is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a "reputable" source? Or is your idea of "reputable" an American propaganda mouth-piece like CNN or Fox News?
Like I already said above, even if I were to be generous by quoting low estimates, the total death toll would still be in the millions. There is no possible way for the total death toll from the Gulf War + UN Sanctions + Iraq War to be anything less than a million, no matter how hard you try to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game...
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is guilty for crimes against humanity. How much longer are you going to deny the obvious facts?
Who invaded a sovereign nation in 1991 with no provocation? It certainly wasn't Saudi Arabia or Iran now was it?Â
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Good for her - barring the fact that she's going to prison, of course. I hope she isn't placed among men.PannicAtack
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
I wouldn't refer to prison rape as "conjugal."The simple fact is, it doesn't happen in a military brig.Â
I wouldn't refer to prison rape as "conjugal."[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
WhiteKnight77
The simple fact is, it doesn't happen in a military brig.Â
Alright. Just don't use wrong words.Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Jag85"]
Glad you asked...
Â
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-genocide-against-iraq-1990-2012-killed-3-3-million-including-750000-children/5314461
"US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children
Statement by Professor Francis Boyle, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were exterminated by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. obstinately insisted that their sanctions remain in place until after the illegal Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UKs Tony Blair in March, 2003, not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children but to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people, Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis as a direct result of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyles class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The grossly hypocritical UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organizations Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.
Albrights shocking response provides proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including Destroying World Order (Clarity Press.)"
Â
Even if we were to be generous and half that figure, that's still millions of Iraqis killed by your government. So, are you going to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game now? Or are you finally going to have the guts to condemn your government's actions in Iraq? If Hitler were alive today, he'd be proud of just how much America is following in his footsteps...
WhiteKnight77
That and the fact that he is missing the fact that it was the UN that placed sanctions on Iraq, that Hussein agreed to, and not the US or Britain. It was also Hussein that withheld the food and medicine from his people that resulted in all those deaths. The Hussein used any money that Iraq goot through the food for oil program to build new palaces during the years that sanctions were in place. That professor isn't as smart as he thinks he is when he blatantly ignores all the facts and same with Jag85.Â
Ah, the usual American propaganda trying to pin all the blame on Saddam again... It was the US-led UN sanctions that prevented (i.e. "tightly regulated") food and medical supplies from getting into the country, not Saddam. Once again, how much longer are you going to play this Iraqi Holocaust Denial game?
Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Jag85"]
Glad you asked...
Â
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-genocide-against-iraq-1990-2012-killed-3-3-million-including-750000-children/5314461
"US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children
Statement by Professor Francis Boyle, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were exterminated by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. obstinately insisted that their sanctions remain in place until after the illegal Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UKs Tony Blair in March, 2003, not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children but to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people, Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis as a direct result of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyles class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The grossly hypocritical UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organizations Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.
Albrights shocking response provides proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including Destroying World Order (Clarity Press.)"
Â
Even if we were to be generous and half that figure, that's still millions of Iraqis killed by your government. So, are you going to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game now? Or are you finally going to have the guts to condemn your government's actions in Iraq? If Hitler were alive today, he'd be proud of just how much America is following in his footsteps...
Jag85
Oh, so it looks like you do want to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game after all...
In that case, what would you consider to be "something reputable"? Are you telling me international law professor Francis Boyle is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a "reputable" source? Or is your idea of "reputable" an American propaganda mouth-piece like CNN or Fox News?
Like I already said above, even if I were to be generous by quoting low estimates, the total death toll would still be in the millions. There is no possible way for the total death toll from the Gulf War + UN Sanctions + Iraq War to be anything less than a million, no matter how hard you try to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game...
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is guilty for crimes against humanity. How much longer are you going to deny the obvious facts?
Straw man. I didn't address your stance. I addressed the lack of valid evidence of your claims. There is a difference kid.[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.Jag85
That and the fact that he is missing the fact that it was the UN that placed sanctions on Iraq, that Hussein agreed to, and not the US or Britain. It was also Hussein that withheld the food and medicine from his people that resulted in all those deaths. The Hussein used any money that Iraq goot through the food for oil program to build new palaces during the years that sanctions were in place. That professor isn't as smart as he thinks he is when he blatantly ignores all the facts and same with Jag85.Â
Ah, the usual American propaganda trying to pin all the blame on Saddam again... It was the US-led UN sanctions that prevented (i.e. "tightly regulated") food and medical supplies from getting into the country, not Saddam. Once again, how much longer are you going to play this Iraqi Holocaust Denial game?
The sanctions put on Iraq were a direct result of Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He agreed to the sanctions so he could stay in power. If you want to blame anybody for people in Iraq starving between 1990 and 2003 look at Saddam. Also, I was part of the 2003 invasion and it is a shame to see the locals of a country you are actually invading running up to you so they can beg for food. Only to drive a few more miles to see one of Saddam's many palaces, some with gold-plated AK-47s.[QUOTE="Jag85"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Now how about something reputable....and not an opinion piece.WhiteKnight77
Oh, so it looks like you do want to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game after all...
In that case, what would you consider to be "something reputable"? Are you telling me international law professor Francis Boyle is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a "reputable" source? Or is your idea of "reputable" an American propaganda mouth-piece like CNN or Fox News?
Like I already said above, even if I were to be generous by quoting low estimates, the total death toll would still be in the millions. There is no possible way for the total death toll from the Gulf War + UN Sanctions + Iraq War to be anything less than a million, no matter how hard you try to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game...
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is guilty for crimes against humanity. How much longer are you going to deny the obvious facts?
Who invaded a sovereign nation in 1991 with no provocation? It certainly wasn't Saudi Arabia or Iran now was it?Â
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 under the pretense that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing Iraqi oil. Before the invasion, Saddam approached the US about his plans and they had no objections. If the US wanted, they could have prevented the invasion by raising objections to his plans, but instead they gave him the impression that the US was okay with his planned invasion. It was only after he actually invaded Kuwait that the US finally showed any opposition. If you think there was "no provocation" on Saddam's part, then I'm afraid you're wrong.
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
[QUOTE="Jag85"]
Oh, so it looks like you do want to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game after all...
In that case, what would you consider to be "something reputable"? Are you telling me international law professor Francis Boyle is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a "reputable" source? Or is your idea of "reputable" an American propaganda mouth-piece like CNN or Fox News?
Like I already said above, even if I were to be generous by quoting low estimates, the total death toll would still be in the millions. There is no possible way for the total death toll from the Gulf War + UN Sanctions + Iraq War to be anything less than a million, no matter how hard you try to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game...
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is guilty for crimes against humanity. How much longer are you going to deny the obvious facts?
Jag85
Who invaded a sovereign nation in 1991 with no provocation? It certainly wasn't Saudi Arabia or Iran now was it?Â
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 under the pretense that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing Iraqi oil. Before the invasion, Saddam approached the US about his plans and they had no objections. If the US wanted, they could have prevented the invasion by raising objections to his plans, but instead they gave him the impression that the US was okay with his planned invasion. It was only after he actually invaded Kuwait that the US finally showed any opposition. If you think there was "no provocation" on Saddam's part, then I'm afraid you're wrong.
Was not aware you were privvy to meetings between the US and Hussein. Don't talk out your ass dude.....[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
[QUOTE="Jag85"]
Oh, so it looks like you do want to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game after all...
In that case, what would you consider to be "something reputable"? Are you telling me international law professor Francis Boyle is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is not a "reputable" source? Or that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a "reputable" source? Or is your idea of "reputable" an American propaganda mouth-piece like CNN or Fox News?
Like I already said above, even if I were to be generous by quoting low estimates, the total death toll would still be in the millions. There is no possible way for the total death toll from the Gulf War + UN Sanctions + Iraq War to be anything less than a million, no matter how hard you try to play the Iraqi Holocaust Denial game...
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is guilty for crimes against humanity. How much longer are you going to deny the obvious facts?
Jag85
Who invaded a sovereign nation in 1991 with no provocation? It certainly wasn't Saudi Arabia or Iran now was it?Â
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 under the pretense that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing Iraqi oil. Before the invasion, Saddam approached the US about his plans and they had no objections. If the US wanted, they could have prevented the invasion by raising objections to his plans, but instead they gave him the impression that the US was okay with his planned invasion. It was only after he actually invaded Kuwait that the US finally showed any opposition. If you think there was "no provocation" on Saddam's part, then I'm afraid you're wrong.
So you know that Saddam's assumptions were true? You were actually in Kuwait to see them doing so? We already know that Saddam had a propensity to attacking his neighbors. Saddam's claimed that Iran was trying to inspire the Shia to uprise against him so attacked Iran as a way to stop it. False claims have been used to start wars for millennia and Saddam was no different in that respect.
Being indifferent does not mean implicit approval by any stretch of the imagination.Â
[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
That and the fact that he is missing the fact that it was the UN that placed sanctions on Iraq, that Hussein agreed to, and not the US or Britain. It was also Hussein that withheld the food and medicine from his people that resulted in all those deaths. The Hussein used any money that Iraq goot through the food for oil program to build new palaces during the years that sanctions were in place. That professor isn't as smart as he thinks he is when he blatantly ignores all the facts and same with Jag85.Â
ad1x2
Ah, the usual American propaganda trying to pin all the blame on Saddam again... It was the US-led UN sanctions that prevented (i.e. "tightly regulated") food and medical supplies from getting into the country, not Saddam. Once again, how much longer are you going to play this Iraqi Holocaust Denial game?
The sanctions put on Iraq were a direct result of Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He agreed to the sanctions so he could stay in power. If you want to blame anybody for people in Iraq starving between 1990 and 2003 look at Saddam. Also, I was part of the 2003 invasion and it is a shame to see the locals of a country you are actually invading running up to you so they can beg for food. Only to drive a few more miles to see one of Saddam's many palaces, some with gold-plated AK-47s.Let me get this straight... The US and allies impose UN sanctions on Iraq that cripple an entire nation... And yet it's all Saddam's fault for not objecting to it?
According to your same logic, it must be the US's fault for the Gulf War taking place, since they didn't object to Saddam's plans to invade Kuwait even though he asked them about it beforehand.
[QUOTE="Jag85"]
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Who invaded a sovereign nation in 1991 with no provocation? It certainly wasn't Saudi Arabia or Iran now was it?Â
WhiteKnight77
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 under the pretense that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing Iraqi oil. Before the invasion, Saddam approached the US about his plans and they had no objections. If the US wanted, they could have prevented the invasion by raising objections to his plans, but instead they gave him the impression that the US was okay with his planned invasion. It was only after he actually invaded Kuwait that the US finally showed any opposition. If you think there was "no provocation" on Saddam's part, then I'm afraid you're wrong.
So you know that Saddam's assumptions were true? You were actually in Kuwait to see them doing so? We already know that Saddam had a propensity to attacking his neighbors. Saddam's claimed that Iran was trying to inspire the Shia to uprise against him so attacked Iran as a way to stop it. False claims have been used to start wars for millennia and Saddam was no different in that respect.
Being indifferent does not mean implicit approval by any stretch of the imagination.Â
In Iran's case, it was the US that was arming and funding Saddam...
Anyway, Saddam's pretense for invading Kuwait is at the very least more plausible than the Bush administration's "WMD" pretense for invading Iraq...
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Good for her - barring the fact that she's going to prison, of course. I hope she isn't placed among men.WhiteKnight77
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
The fact that she (yes, she) is going into solitary confinement for what she did does not, in any way, justify any mistreatment that she faces. Also, she doesn't deserve to go to an all-male prison. She's a woman, so she should be allowed to go to an all-female prison.[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Good for her - barring the fact that she's going to prison, of course. I hope she isn't placed among men.ghoklebutter
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
The fact that she (yes, she) is going into solitary confinement for what she did does not, in any way, justify any mistreatment that she faces. Also, she doesn't deserve to go to an all-male prison. She's a woman, so she should be allowed to go to an all-female prison.Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
Saddam kinda had to go.
The fact that she (yes, she) is going into solitary confinement for what she did does not, in any way, justify any mistreatment that she faces. Also, she doesn't deserve to go to an all-male prison. She's a woman, so she should be allowed to go to an all-female prison.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
dude_brahmski
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side.[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] The fact that she (yes, she) is going into solitary confinement for what she did does not, in any way, justify any mistreatment that she faces. Also, she doesn't deserve to go to an all-male prison. She's a woman, so she should be allowed to go to an all-female prison. ghoklebutter
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side.On that front, I'd be a hell of a lot more annoyed by the lack of medical treatment thing than which gender prison the solitary confinement cell is in, but that's just me.
[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] The fact that she (yes, she) is going into solitary confinement for what she did does not, in any way, justify any mistreatment that she faces. Also, she doesn't deserve to go to an all-male prison. She's a woman, so she should be allowed to go to an all-female prison. ghoklebutter
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side. i like how all of a sudden he has become a she :lol: you guys are a complete joke.[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Good for her - barring the fact that she's going to prison, of course. I hope she isn't placed among men.ghoklebutter
He guarenteed himself a sentence in solitary confinement, even after he spent all that time in solitary prior to his trial. No one can complain about inhumane treatement anymore as he (yes, still a he no matter what he thinks in his mind for now), brought it upon himself. Even if he was put in the general population, there would be no conjugal activities between inmates in a military brig.Â
The fact that she (yes, she) is going into solitary confinement for what she did does not, in any way, justify any mistreatment that she faces. Also, she doesn't deserve to go to an all-male prison. She's a woman, so she should be allowed to go to an all-female prison.As long as he has male parts, he will go to the United States Disciplinary Barracks. As previously stated, there will be no surgery, no hormone treatments and he will dress in typical military uniforms, in this case, cammies (both male and females wear the same cammies) and he will be expected to have a haircut to men's standards, in most cases, it will be a weekly cut.
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side. i like how all of a sudden he has become a she :lol: you guys are a complete joke. she's not a guy[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
GrayF0X786
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side. i like how all of a sudden he has become a she :lol: you guys are a complete joke.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
GrayF0X786
Tell me more about how the ME will rise again or something.
It humors me.
[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]The fact that she (yes, she) is going into solitary confinement for what she did does not, in any way, justify any mistreatment that she faces. Also, she doesn't deserve to go to an all-male prison. She's a woman, so she should be allowed to go to an all-female prison. ghoklebutter
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side.He brought it upon himself. Should have waited until he was released from the brig. If he is claiming to have a gender identity issue now, then he faces more charges for a fraudulent enlistment which can garner more charges and brig time.Â
The psychological mess this guy must be could explain a lot of the misbehavior.
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
dude_brahmski
On that front, I'd be a hell of a lot more annoyed by the lack of medical treatment thing than which gender prison the solitary confinement cell is in, but that's just me.
I guess I wasn't clear. It's the lack of medical treatment that I'm most upset about regarding the whole case. I'm just saying that, in regards to Manning being placed in an all-male solitary confinement prison as opposed to an all-female solitary confinement prison, what annoys me most is the misgendering.I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side. i like how all of a sudden he has become a she :lol: you guys are a complete joke. Manning has been out as trans for like, a year and a half now. Inexplicably, the media didn't catch onto it, and Manning herself decided not to play it up throughout the court case for fear of it overshadowing the real nature of the trial.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
GrayF0X786
In short: abuse. Forcing a trans* woman to live as a man is highly abusive and bigoted. Even being forced to cut one's hair, something I have faced myself before, is an awful thing to deal with.there will be no surgery, no hormone treatments and he will dress in typical military uniforms, in this case, cammies (both male and females wear the same cammies) and he will be expected to have a haircut to men's standards, in most cases, it will be a weekly cut.
WhiteKnight77
[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side. ghoklebutter
On that front, I'd be a hell of a lot more annoyed by the lack of medical treatment thing than which gender prison the solitary confinement cell is in, but that's just me.
I guess I wasn't clear. It's the lack of medical treatment that I'm most upset about regarding the whole case. I'm just saying that, in regards to Manning being placed in an all-male solitary confinement prison as opposed to an all-female solitary confinement prison, what annoys me most is the misgendering.Fair enough. How much of this is institutional lag and how much is legit misgendering, I am not sure.
i like how all of a sudden he has become a she :lol: you guys are a complete joke.[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"]
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side. dude_brahmski
Tell me more about how the ME will rise again or something.
It humors me.
i didn't say the ME, but you can come back with your real account so we can discuss this further :)I guess I wasn't clear. It's the lack of medical treatment that I'm most upset about regarding the whole case. I'm just saying that, in regards to Manning being placed in an all-male solitary confinement prison as opposed to an all-female solitary confinement prison, what annoys me most is the misgendering.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]
On that front, I'd be a hell of a lot more annoyed by the lack of medical treatment thing than which gender prison the solitary confinement cell is in, but that's just me.
dude_brahmski
Fair enough. How much of this is institutional lag and how much is legit misgendering, I am not sure.
Manning is a soldier, which is why she's going to a military prison. Under the supervision of such prisons, inmates are still expected to live up to the standards set for regular soldiers. Because only the Veterans association recognizes and covers the health of trans soldiers, while the military does not allow any soldier to be out and trans (this includes receiving medical treatments for gender dysphoria), Manning is stuck in the position of being considered a man by the military until her release, as per protocol. It's an organizational issue, not lag. They aren't pushing for any changes at all. It's legitimate misgendering, because 'Bradley Manning' enlisted, and they don't recognize the trans status of their employees, and I doubt that Manning will be able to clear a name change without a heck of a fight, given that it's now linked to her status as a trans woman. performing it might be an act of recognizing Manning as trans, which is against protocol or whatever.In short: abuse. Forcing a trans* woman to live as a man is highly abusive and bigoted. Even being forced to cut one's hair, something I have faced myself before, is an awful thing to deal with.[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
there will be no surgery, no hormone treatments and he will dress in typical military uniforms, in this case, cammies (both male and females wear the same cammies) and he will be expected to have a haircut to men's standards, in most cases, it will be a weekly cut.
ghoklebutter
It's not abuse. He signed a contract stating he was a male and told the psychiatrists at his pre-enlistment physical that he was a man. That is how the US military will treat him until his release and his DD-214 will reflect that too once he is discharged. As far as the military is concerned, he will be Bradley Manning even if paroled from the prison and has the sex change operation then. Again, he brought all this upon himself by revealing such a thing. He is the one who made the decision to disclose this and is why he is going to be placed where he is. If he kept his mouth shut, he would have gone into general population, but the minute he stated he was gay and then transgendered, he assured himself the location as to where he would be kept, not the military. Â
Oh yeah, would Manning now like women being that he proclaimed himself to be gay (liking men) as a man now that he claims to be transgendered and wants to be seen as a woman meaning that she is now a lesbian? That would make him still straight if that is the case.Â
In short: abuse. Forcing a trans* woman to live as a man is highly abusive and bigoted. Even being forced to cut one's hair, something I have faced myself before, is an awful thing to deal with.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
there will be no surgery, no hormone treatments and he will dress in typical military uniforms, in this case, cammies (both male and females wear the same cammies) and he will be expected to have a haircut to men's standards, in most cases, it will be a weekly cut.
WhiteKnight77
It's not abuse. He signed a contract stating he was a male and told the psychiatrists at his pre-enlistment physical that he was a man. That is how the US military will treat him until his release and his DD-214 will reflect that too once he is discharged. As far as the military is concerned, he will be Bradley Manning even if paroled from the prison and has the sex change operation then. Again, he brought all this upon himself by revealing such a thing. He is the one who made the decision to disclose this and is why he is going to be placed where he is. If he kept his mouth shut, he would have gone into general population, but the minute he stated he was gay and then transgendered, he assured himself the location as to where he would be kept, not the military. Â
She's still being forced to live as a man, which is abusive. Please stop trying to excuse it by saying that she brought it upon herself. It doesn't change the fact that this is abuse.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment