Bradley Manning gets 35 years for leaks, now wants to be 'Chelsea' Manning

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Scroll to chapter 3-35 of AR 40-501. If Private Manning is mentally a woman he had no place in the Army in the first place.

 

Also, since he openly admitted in his letter to Today that he felt this way since he was a child the Army could use that to court-martial him again for fraudulent enlistment and add another year or two to his sentence.Inconsistancy

Sounds likes he wants to take the man out of Manning.

My first crush was a girl named Chelsea. 

(this is actually true)

Every medical policy the Army has in place is because in a combat zone those banned conditions could be aggravated, causing harm to either the Soldier or their battle buddies. People with asthma are not allowed because they may have an attack in the middle of a fight. People who sleepwalk are not allowed because they may sleepwalk into a minefield or off of the side of a ship in the middle of the ocean. People who wet the bed are not allowed because they may urinate in their sleeping bag and may not have the opportunity to wash it out. 

In case you are wondering what this has to do with being transgendered versus being homosexual or bisexual, it is the category of the disqualification. Being gay or bi was considered a moral disqualification for the longest time, similar to being a felon (not my words). That was the main reason consensual sodomy was punishable under UCMJ. On the other hand, being transgendered is considered a medical disqualification and was not affected by the DADT repeal. 

The issue is some people who are transgendered desire hormones or other treatment and those things can't be guaranteed in the middle of a war. Even if they could, the military does not want to dedicate resources to get hormones to a transgendered troop when those resources can be used for something that would help raise morale or win the battle. I am aware not all people who are transgendered take something for it but it is easier for the Army to disqualify all of them than to evaluate them to let them in on a case by case basis. 

Going back to Private Manning and his preference to be a woman, he is not a civilian and until he is officially given his Dishonorable Discharge he is still subject to UCMJ. If he attempts to get a sex change prior to then he could possibly face punishment under Article 134 of the UCMJ for self-injury since getting a sex change is a violation of the Army's medical regulations.ad1x2

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Every medical policy the Army has in place is because in a combat zone those banned conditions could be aggravated, causing harm to either the Soldier or their battle buddies. People with asthma are not allowed because they may have an attack in the middle of a fight. People who sleepwalk are not allowed because they may sleepwalk into a minefield or off of the side of a ship in the middle of the ocean. People who wet the bed are not allowed because they may urinate in their sleeping bag and may not have the opportunity to wash it out. 

In case you are wondering what this has to do with being transgendered versus being homosexual or bisexual, it is the category of the disqualification. Being gay or bi was considered a moral disqualification for the longest time, similar to being a felon (not my words). That was the main reason consensual sodomy was punishable under UCMJ. On the other hand, being transgendered is considered a medical disqualification and was not affected by the DADT repeal. 

The issue is some people who are transgendered desire hormones or other treatment and those things can't be guaranteed in the middle of a war. Even if they could, the military does not want to dedicate resources to get hormones to a transgendered troop when those resources can be used for something that would help raise morale or win the battle. I am aware not all people who are transgendered take something for it but it is easier for the Army to disqualify all of them than to evaluate them to let them in on a case by case basis. 

Going back to Private Manning and his preference to be a woman, he is not a civilian and until he is officially given his Dishonorable Discharge he is still subject to UCMJ. If he attempts to get a sex change prior to then he could possibly face punishment under Article 134 of the UCMJ for self-injury since getting a sex change is a violation of the Army's medical regulations.Inconsistancy

Some people are already using the fact that Manning is gay as a reason why we not only should have never repealed DADT, but that we should go back to the pre-Clinton system where you was asked by your recruiter if you was gay, was disqualified if you was honest and said yes, and was court-martialed if you lied to get in and was outed later.ad1x2

Its pretty easy not to send out classified documents. He should have known better. He will be someone's girlfriend now.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="dave123321"]They understand the stated reasons and the thoughts behind them. Agreeing with them is another matterdave123321

If people understood, or bothered to read the whole thread for that matter, people would not keep asking the same questions over and over. Whether they agree or not is a different story as you said.

Ad1x2 and myself have stated time and again, what is happening and what will happen with Manning. People keep trying to put a civilian look on this case and not keep in mind that this is a military matter and military rules apply. Citing the Constitution does not matter. The UCMJ matters and is what governs how someone who volunteered for military service should act as well as the rules and regulations beyond that. Someone who volunteers for the military is fully informed that they give up certain rights that are contained in the Constitution even if other rights parallel it.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Some people are already using the fact that Manning is gay as a reason why we not only should have never repealed DADT, but that we should go back to the pre-Clinton system where you was asked by your recruiter if you was gay, was disqualified if you was honest and said yes, and was court-martialed if you lied to get in and was outed later.dave123321

This is why I have stated time and again, that Manning should have kept his mouth shut. 

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]Some people are already using the fact that Manning is gay as a reason why we not only should have never repealed DADT, but that we should go back to the pre-Clinton system where you was asked by your recruiter if you was gay, was disqualified if you was honest and said yes, and was court-martialed if you lied to get in and was outed later.WhiteKnight77

This is why I have stated time and again, that Manning should have kept his mouth shut. 

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"] That's a shamedave123321

This is why I have stated time and again, that Manning should have kept his mouth shut. 

I'm surprised they didn't just execute him like the traitor he is.

I'm surprised they didn't just execute him like the traitor he is.

GD1551

I'm surprised they didn't just execute him like the traitor he is.

GD1551

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Gender dysphoria doesn't make someone a "sick weirdo."chrisrooR

yes it sure does. it sure isnt a normal thing

What weird sentencing laws in the United States.slatesekx

Care to explain? 

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]At the risk of sounding insensitive, not all people who are transgendered are all there mentally. Yes, a lot may lead productive lifestyles and some may not even want treatment and are just comfortable identifying as a different gender than what they were born as. But the military feels that it isn't worth the risk to allow a few in who can function because of the ones who can't.

 

The military wants healthy people who don't need constant treatment to serve, not somebody who might break down if they don't get their regular shot of hormones to keep their breasts growing on schedule. When a Soldier is sick or injured for whatever reason his or her peers have to pick up their slack. That could be life threatening in a combat situation not just to the Soldier but their whole squad. Not to mention when you join the military they just inherited any illness or injury you have or will have in the future in terms of medical treatment and disability payments.

 

Also, like I mentioned earlier any chance of people being transgendered enlisting in the near future may have been ruined by Private Manning. During his court-martial his lawyer used the fact that he was transgendered (to include showing a picture of him in drag) as an excuse to why he did the leaks. Because of that, when a lawmaker says he wants to pass a bill allowing transgendered men and women the privilege to join opponents will just bring up that an openly transgendered Soldier was responsible for the biggest leak of classified information in the country's history.

 

Some people are already using the fact that Manning is gay as a reason why we not only should have never repealed DADT, but that we should go back to the pre-Clinton system where you was asked by your recruiter if you was gay, was disqualified if you was honest and said yes, and was court-martialed if you lied to get in and was outed later.Leejjohno

That's dumb. People who are gay arent trying to be the opposite sex.

Manning originally stated that he was gay. He then claimed that he was transgenered and wants to be a woman. While not all gays want to be a person of the opposite sex, Manning has stated such. 

He should face a firing squad, fvcking traitorheeweesRus

My first crush was a girl named Chelsea.

(this is actually true)Storm_Marine

And then her parents left the White House?

He should face a firing squad, fvcking traitorheeweesRus

I'm surprised they didn't just execute him like the traitor he is.

GD1551

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

I'm surprised they didn't just execute him like the traitor he is.

YoshiYogurt

[QUOTE="heeweesRus"]He should face a firing squad, fvcking traitorMrPraline

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="heeweesRus"]He should face a firing squad, fvcking traitorad1x2

I don't understand why you'd support this punishment when, outside of the military, it would almost certainly be considered unconstitutional. Should the military, an organization that (supposedly) represents, and defends, the ideals of this nation, not be required to follow its laws; especially in the case of its citizens? And why shouldn't it? Is it right for the military to deny treatment of a prisoner just because of their backward ass opinions on what acceptable medical treatment is? And what makes a civilian criminal worthy of treatment over a non-civilian?

Or maybe, do you support this just because it's the law, and for no other reason?

[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] she*Inconsistancy

I don't understand why you'd support this punishment when, outside of the military, it would almost certainly be considered unconstitutional. Should the military, an organization that (supposedly) represents, and defends, the ideals of this nation, not be required to follow its laws; especially in the case of its citizens*? And why shouldn't it? Is it right for the military to deny treatment of a prisoner just because of their backward ass opinions on what acceptable medical treatment is? And what makes a civilian criminal worthy of treatment over a non-civilian?

Or maybe, do you support this just because it's the law, and for no other reason?

Such things are necessary for the military to be an effective force, you can't have your subordinates disrespecting you because in a combat situation that can cause somebody to get killed. Not something you would need to worry about while flipping burgers.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] she*Inconsistancy

I don't understand why you'd support this punishment when, outside of the military, it would almost certainly be considered unconstitutional. Should the military, an organization that (supposedly) represents, and defends, the ideals of this nation, not be required to follow its laws; especially in the case of its citizens? And why shouldn't it? Is it right for the military to deny treatment of a prisoner just because of their backward ass opinions on what acceptable medical treatment is? And what makes a civilian criminal worthy of treatment over a non-civilian?

Or maybe, do you support this just because it's the law, and for no other reason?

The military has its own rules and laws. Volunteers give up the rights they would have under the Constitution and are subject to the UCMJ instead. While there are similarities between federal and state laws, once you sign on the dotted line, you are no longer subject to those. Everyone is fully aware of it before they sign.

If Manning were to have an aneurysm, a heart attack or is in need of a filling or a tooth pulled, he will get such treatment, but as far as the transgender treatements or surgery, they are not a life and death matter and as such, will not get those while in a military prison. It isn't about what the orginization represents, but how Manning represented himself as an enlistee when he signed the papers. No one stuck a gun to his head to sign the papers, it is something he did of his own volition and until he is released from the brig, will stay a man without extraneous medical care other that what is needed to keep him healthy and disease free.