Oh, I don't know. Maybe because some of us believe in freedom of speech and some of the stuff that he...well, okay she...leaked showed atrocities committed by some corrupt U.S. soldiers who shouldn't have been in the army to begin with?
Snowdrop.
Eh, I don't care what the traitorous piece of crap does with himself. I'm guessing Bradley Manning doesn't have all his lights on upstairs anyways. I don't know why people sympathize with him/her/it.
Don't make up stuff that I said. The fact that he identifies as female has nothing to do with what I think of him. He feels more comfortable as a woman? More power to him! There are a lot of people in the same shoes, apparently.
I knew people were going to get huffy when I said "why would you sympathize with someone like that." And apparently in the courtroom he literally said he f*cking hates this country. Those soldiers may have done some messed up stuff, but they don't represent the majority. He leaked hundreds of thousands of other documents with classified information. However, I don't think this guy's evil or really malicious. Just... overly self-justified, I guess you could call it. And his prison sentence is a bit much (at least I think so). But still, he leaked important information and that's that. Freedom of speech carries far but not that far.
We have discuss this several times before, but it's a bit off topic, so I will just offer a brief reasoning as to why this is not Constitutionally guarenteed freedom of speech. First off, not all speech is protected. Second, this speech is prohibited by Federal laws, especially given it concerns military operations the freedom of speech undergoes a much higher scrutiny as observed in U.S. Supreme Court Cases, as speech may inhibit certain military objectives. If the Courts condoned Manning's actions, it would encourage more leaks, and thus more conflicts which is demonstrated by the third point. Thirdly, the consequences of leaks had a MASSIVE negative effect upon U.S foreign policy as well as peace relations with the "the West" and the Middle Eastern nations. The information and footage intercepted by Al-Qaeda enabled them to mobilize into other regions. The group prior to the leaks was isolated in very few regions. Further, the leaks have mobilized uprisings, which, again, allows for organizations like Al-Qaeda to mobilize and recruit members as well as create societal tensions and violence of which is not conducive with stability and/or a gradual shift to democratic institutions. Further, given that uprising groups, at the very least initially, were of Anti-American policy, democratic institutions being built upon that premise is troubling for the U.S. and its allies, and thus, the Middle Eastern region itself. Now, many people have lauded the Arab Spring for empowering the citizens to institute democracy, when in fact it is causing more vigilantism, military coups, and increase in government authoritarian and despotism in order to remedy these movements. Thus, civil wars. Additionally, the citizens themselves are divided more than ever; it's not just authoritarian regimes vs. citizens. Look at Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Egypt. They are all chaotic and divided over traditions/customs vs secularism. Provoking this movement was not a conscious decision by Manning, he was not in a right state of mind to decide the fate of all of these nations' stability and how it affects the entire global community. Certainly, certainly, we can point the finger at both the Bush and Obama administrations for implementing policies that encouraged protests and political dissonance; however, Mannings unilateral decision inflamed the situation with the middle east, as it was the platform by which allowed the Arab Spring to commence and mobilize. Though, we can certainly say Mannings intentions were good, there are reasons why the law prohibits certain behaviors of those with classified information due to the high sensitivity of that information, of which has a profound affect on the entire world. I have said it before, he was not in the right state of mind to be making these decision or have the power and accessibility to this information given Manning's extensive record of erratic behavior and violent outbursts. Manning's commanders should bear some of the liability for the unlawful actions. Though he has highly aggravated the already shaky relationship with the U.S and Middle Eastern region, he should be treated like any other prisoner, not like any other law-abiding transgender person, nor worse than any other prisoner. Manning's sentencing is justified, so it's not a matter of if he should or should not be in prison,
it's a matter of how the U.S. Federal Prison addresses gender identification of transgenders in a way that balances the concerns of the inmate as well as the rest of the inmate population in order to reduce conflicts and reduce inequality of medical access among the inmate population. And, to address how medical coverage of prisoners ought to be dealt with in concerns with the rest of the population, i.e law-abiding tax-payers.
We are obfuscating this issue by discussing our personal thoughts on transgender rights in a general sense rather than distinguishing them with transgenders in prison, as well as our personal sentiment of Manning good and bad. Manning being in prison shouldn't dictate or affect how we address policies that affect all transgender people in prisons. Lastly, like other thread, I keep seeing "I/you/we/they have a right or need to..." These are not arguments unless you demonstrate why that is a right rather than simply stating it is an inalienable right. No one is born with the right to anything, rather we justify why some actions are justified in that they are or should be condoned in order to improve society in some form or fashion. Empty truisms of right and wrong are exactly what we need to avoid. Further, please address the pros and cons of a policy, just focusing on the wellbeing of this one individual inmate isn't balancing the concern with the other inmates, taxpayers, and equity of law-abiding transgender persons who are more than likely not offered this surgery/therapy free of charge.
This is why I am not a fan of highly specific news stories that are anecdotes that may speak to broader issues, these instead become convoluted with a multitude of extenuating circumstances that affect how we would have addressed the issue otherwise from a more philosophical standpoint, and rather it becomes personal.
