I am Chelsea Manning

Michael Jackson supports this message!

 

There is no right or wrong gender. There is however a chemical/hormone imbalance that can make one feel as though they are the wrong gender. I dont buy into the born the wrong gender crap, but it doesnt effect me so I dont care one way or the other what mutilations people want to put them through as they seek some semblance of happiness in their lives.

 

I agree with everything you said, except the part about gender mutilation being "reasonable" medical care.

 

Im pretty hardcore about most things, but I dont consider him a traitor. If those on the inside dont alert us to illegal activities, then who will? Obama specifically said that he wouldnt prosecute whistle blowers, and he has done it twice now. I do not approve of the lack of integrity and ethics we have been displaying through our government for far too long now and its about high time someone stood up and screamed "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" at the top of their lungs. I understand the importance of secrecy in our military, but I will never agree with secrecy being our method of hiding illegal activities. Why must he pay for breaking the law, but our government shouldnt?

 

She is intelligent enough to realize that WikiLeaks is a site that is open to anyone and would publish anything. I have zero qualms that Assange would, if given the chance, publish access codes to a nuclear launch bunker and the code to the key safes. Being that the site is open to anyone, it is also open to our enemies, so releasing information to the site is, in effect, as good as releasing it to Ayman al-Zawahiri himself.

I would have defended Manning, if she had stayed within the law. She chose not to follow the law, ergo, she deserves no respect in my eyes.

Our government is prosecuting a war on terrorism. Never before has a country fought a war against a stateless enemy. I don't like that we had to use torture to get the answers we needed to effectively prosecute the war, but I'll take a terrorist being waterboarded over letting him go back to blow himself and a few civilians up just to kill more Americans. I never liked the idea that we had to use Little Boy and Fat Man either, but like even some Japanese acknowledged that using them caused the Japanese to give up instead of risking an invasion where casualties would have been massive on both sides.

The Founders never would have dreamed up something like 9/11. There was the instance of "Tarleton's Quarter" in the Revolution, when a British commander, after a battle, refused quarter to American troops and slaughtered several wounded.

Imagine the horror and torture some poor schmuck on the 93rd floor of either the North or South Towers before they fell. Imagine the torture of knowing that he couldn't get down through the crash floors and that a helicopter escape would have been impossible because of the smoke. Imagine that worker looking at his wife and kids and KNOWING he would never see them. Imagine the pain he felt when he'd try to call his wife and got a busy signal, or his mother, and got a busy signal. Imagine him looking teary eyed and then kissing the picture of his family he had on his desk before he threw his computer monitor through the window and jumped out of the building, preferring to die that way instead of waiting for the inevitable, preferring to die on his own terms instead of someone else's.

Imagine that. Now remember that the World Trade Centers had, at full occupancy, a population of roughly 50,000. The attacks were perpetrated at a relatively early hour when a lot of the workers were still making their way to the towers, since Tuesday, September 11th was an election day in New York City. I can easily imagine the Football being opened and utilized had the attack happened around noon.

With all that in mind, now still tell me that torturing some terrorist bastard is still unjustifiable. They want to inflict death and destruction on America for little more than protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraqi aggression in 1990-91, and they think it's justifiable that they kill our people. They fight a war using irregular means, and as such, we have to adapt. The Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War were made for cases of two countries fighting, not one country against a band of religious fanatic criminal mutts.

“If you want to kick the tiger in his ass you'd better have a plan for dealing with his teeth" -Tom Clancy. We, the United States of America, are the biggest, baddest, and most vicious tiger when we are pissed off. I take pride knowing that the last thing Osama bin Laden ever saw was an American with a rifle.

 

"Objective" does not mean what you think it means.

 

That makes no sense in law. Law is moral and opposes criminality, it doesn't shelter it. Manning exposed criminal activities. If Manning had exposed, say, North Korean criminality he'd be a hero to the North American government. He didn't do that. He exposed North American government criminality. The law should address the criminality first and then judge Manning. It's the back-assward system which is not deserving of respect. Manning's actions were highly moral and respectable.

It was more likely his TV screen and japati as he was shot in the back.

 

That's one of the problems with the current Constitution, the war-making powers outlined within the document have little limitation. Their breadth allowed for all of these abuses. Something can be immoral, yet still Constitutional. Just like how some on here can't stand that same-sex marriage will likely be made legal on a Constitutional basis, so too, is what our government did in prosecuting the wars. Even if something is passed by a federal law to limit the powers, and the Executive Branch breaks the law, any conviction can be appealed and the law struck down because it imposes a limit that may not have been intended by the text of the Constitution even if it was by the spirit.

There's a scary scenario that I've come up with that says someone with enough money could consolidate enough power to actually repeal the Bill of Rights. It's such an infinitesimally small probability of it happening that many people refuse to believe it is possible. Yet how many times has something that has been considered "impossible" been achieved? The entire linchpin of the possibility rests upon the fact that nothing in the Constitution protects the democratic provisions thereof from being repealed.

 

I doubt he wants taxpayers to pay for sexual reassignment surgery or breast implants. I think just give him the hormone pills and be done with it.

 

Actually that makes perfect sense to me too. If a person is unhappy they should do what makes them happy as long as they aren't hurting anyone. If being a girl makes this guy happy he should go for it. I bet he will find lots of penpals that agree he was a hero and not a traitor and will fund his SRS and a boob job.

 

The problems? Constitution or the penal code? If the problem is in the Constitution the Constitution must be change, if the problem is in criminal code,just change the Criminal Code. Manning is not guilty. Manning is not a traitor, not a deserter, what is wrong? ...

 

The video shows a group of men with arm straps attached to something at their sides. In 2 cases that I can see, there are what looks like horizontal long items perpendicular to their waists. One item appears to be larger and extending down almost to the ground.

The video shows the profile of a guy at the corner of a building peeking around with some long item in his hand. As the Apache goes behind the building the guy aims it toward the Apache. The troops in the helicopter identify it is a RPG however, it could be a camera with a long lens.

I enhanced the video to 480p (360 was the default) I could see a reflection in the 'RPG' aimed at the Apache which could be the reflection of a camera lens but, if one is in a helicopter and a long tube like thing is lifted up toward you and being aimed, not reacting could mean death in less than a second. Also, keep in mind that I have the benefit of a video I can enhance, pause and replay while also having the luxury of time.

Before that, there is a guy walking with what looks like a weapon hanging from his shoulder.

Other than typical war rhetoric, I did not hear any murderous intentions coming from the Apache crew. They constantly asked for clearance to fire and were in contact with ground forces as well.

This could well be a tragic accident and, I can't help but wonder what that guy was doing aiming at the Apache. This was a field of engagement even before the shooting. Photographers had no reason to be there and it is irresponsible (to say the least) for someone to bring their child with them as they drive into the live fire zone.

This was no murder and, if you have proof, please provide it.

 

This post is the best post written in a long time. Americans should read it over and over and remind themselves just who perpetrated 9-11. They were muslims that declared jihad on USA. Not Christians, not Jews, not Atheists, not blacks, not the KKK/StormFront, not Buddhists. MUSLIMS. And every time you see a muslim on a street or watch a muslim post on PF, just remember that these 19 mass murderers were hiding among these supposedly peaceful muslim communities in Boston, NY, and Florida, etc. These supposedly peaceful muslims commiserated with the jihadists belief that the West is the evil empire, and decided that islam and camaraderie was more important than saying something to the FBI. They had two years to say something to the FBI, and each and every time they picked to side with jihad over their country of residence. I only wish each and every muslim in America was forcefully relocated back to the Middle East or Asia; because the actions of these few in NY, PA, Washington, and now Boston prove that as long as even one single muslim exists in America we as a nation are in more danger for it. America is a country designed by Founding Fathers that were Christians and Deists, and the FF's were at war with muslims since 1778 when the Treaty of Alliance was created, and culminating with an all out war called the First Barbary War, with Thomas Jefferson as the Commander of that war. Since that time, muslims have done nothing to deserve safe harbor in USA.

 

That is interpreting my words in a way which I did not intend them.

A Muslim attempted to warn the United States that something was going to happen, he was assassinated on September 9, 2001 right before he was to meet with a US government official.

Furthermore, since I believe you are referring to the Barbary Wars, that conflict was fought over piracy, not religion.

As I pointed out in another thread, lumping all Muslims into the group of "terrorists" will only serve as a self-affirming prophecy. Treat all Muslims as terrorists, and they will become terrorists.

Furthermore, there have been many American Muslims who have served with honor within the United States military in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That being said, I reject your praise upon that post, since you have co-opted and corrupted it in such a way that it was not meant.

I just said the problem was in the broad and vague language within the Constitution.

Even under a reformed Constitution, Manning would STILL be guilty, he leaked classified information. As long as there are rules of classification, what he did will always be a criminal act. There will always be rules of classification because that is the only way to effectively allow for the protection of our servicemen and women. Without our servicemen and servicewomen, our very way of life is in jeopardy.

 

They did this to themselves. Christians did not tell muslims to become jihadists. They elected to pick a religion that calls for the extermination of all Jews and Christians. There are some muslims in America that I am sure individually are wonderful people. It's when they get together and support the teachings of a child rapist that called for the extermination and/or enslavement of every Jew and Christian on the planet that the whole concept of them coexisting with the rest of America becomes dangerous. Until such a time as muslims are willing to reject the sick instructions of that pedophile rapist and actually become a religion of peace; they should not be welcome in America.

 

Your rejection does not matter, since I have quoted it and now it exists for all to read for eternity. Just as is my response. And some will read your words and say islam is peaceful. Conversely some will read my words and agree that islam is far from peaceful and is a threat to Christians and Jews in America and worldwide.

 

Off the bat, your assertion is rife with logical inaccuracy. This isn't about Assange, it's about Manning and the information he leaked in order to shine a light on the activity of the US. Like I said, he did not give this information to an enemy state. Your opinion of Assange and the hyperbolic example of how you THINK he would handle nuclear launch codes, etc., is not relevant.

He didn't put the information on the site, he provided it to the organization. There is a distinct difference. The information he provided was extremely broad and included a HUGE amount of data. It is unreasonable to expect a whistle blower that is up against a corrupt system to be able to weed through such info and ensure none of it may be more sensitive than others.

The problem is that you are accepting of a clearly corrupt system of justice metering out punishment for the whistle blower that exposed it's corruption but have not called for any accountability of the state shown to be corrupt.

One that is largely predicated on lies, as exposed by the actions of Mr. Manning.

Except the war on drugs...which was also predicated on lies and misinformation and was orchestrated for ulterior motives that had nothing to do with fighting "drugs".

There is absolutely no validity to your assertion that torturing ANYONE lead to any actionable intelligence that could not have been obtained without resorting to such illegal and morally reprehensible actions. In fact, it is far more likely that the torture of the estimated between 60 and 80% innocent people incarcerated at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib were more inclined to resort to become militants AFTER their treatment as detainees than they would have been if they were never detained in the first place. The entire system of detention and torture was designed to provide justification for the war on terror that was nothing but a means by the controllers of the corrupt US governing apparatus to expand the police state, their spying programs, and to treat ALL people as guilty until proven innocent.

So, you're an "ends justify the means" kind of person? In that case, you seem to be overly judgmental of Manning's actions, to a hypocritical degree.

9/11 is not a legitimate excuse to compromise our principles of justice and liberty for all.

Imagine the horror of the poor little Iraqi boys taken from their mothers and sodomized in Abu Ghraib. Do you think your hypothetical WTC employee would want that to be done as a means of ensuring an attack such as 9/11 doesn't happen again?

Can you, now? So you think if there were more massive casualties on 9/11, nuclear retaliation would have been justified? And which country would you have attacked? We now know that the administration falsified data to justify the invasion of Iraq and we don't really have any reason to believe Bin Laden was ever in Afghanistan since he was ultimately, supposedly, captured in Pakistan...many years later.

Your premise is flawed because you are assuming that all the people that were tortured were known terrorists. They weren't. Not even close. In fact, the bounty system that was put in place is clearly an attempt at gaining volume over substance. Why would the power that be seek to detain people in volume over seeking to target the actual terror threats? Use your critical thinking skills.

You seem awful determined to justify torture as a legitimate means of treating detainees, detainees who's status has not been reviewed by any judicial system and who have never been charged with anything but possibly being named by a previously detainee under duress from being tortured to give names.

You don't know what the last thing Bin Laden saw, was. All you know is what a government that has been shown to be utterly corrupt and dishonest told you. The word of the US government isn't worth the paper you wipe your ass with.

 

Firstly, this event would not have been made known without Manning. Why was it suppressed?

Ok, I agree with your analysis up to the point in time you stopped analysing. However, look at the events after the first group were shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Quotes: 8:30 "come on buddy, All you gotta do is pick up a weapon",
9:23 "let me engage, can I shoot, come on let us shoot, picking up bodies, request permission to engage, (shouting) come on!"

12:09 "Oh yea, look at that, right through the windshield,ha ha"

This is murderous intent. No where was a weapon seen on those trying to help the injured. This "live fire zone" is their home.

 

Bradley/Chelsea may want to be a woman, may refer to himself as a woman, may feel like a woman in his mind, but until he gets the operation, he is still a man. Your gender isn't an ideological position.

 

This is the kind of mentality that justifies torture...based on ethnicity...regardless of guilt or even any legitimate association.

 

I think that your interpretation of your constitution is a misinterpretation. War crimes are not described in your constitution in any way and will not to be , and the evidence of war crimes is not a crime. Maybe the Nuremberg trials was wrong? In your american case Your justice is trying to hide the fascist nature of your State.

 

It wasn't suppressed, it was classified as is most video footage in an on-going war. It was wrong for Manning to take it upon himself to release it to WikiLeaks.

Their job is to kill the enemy. They identified these guys as the enemy and they were in that mode. There was no murderous intent at all. If they were truly bloodthirsty they would have killed the wounded guy instead of calling their ground crew to go over to him. The reason they ended up killing him and the van occupants is because of their stated visual of weapons. Remember they were in contact with a ground crew that had different eyes on the on-going incident.

 

Manning is a traitor. He's going to prison as punishment. All he deserves is food and a cell. If he wanted to live his life and goals without interruption he should have kept his nose clean. Lock him up and be done with it.

 

Lengthy post, bear with me.

That is a very narrow interpretation of all Muslims based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, an Eighteenth-Centry Islamic fundamentalist who had a rather puritanical view of Islam. Just as Puritan Christianity is often rejected, so too is Puritan Islam and Puritan Judaism. As I have said, it is only because ibn Saud was a follower of al-Wahhab's teachings did Wahhabi Salafist Sunni Islam become the state religion of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Without that, the Wahhabi movement would have been marginalized to select communities.

Islam, like Christianity, Judaism, and any other religion with a large base of adherents, has a multitude of different sects and interpretations. Ignoring that is illogical.

Your response stands as testament to your ill-conceived notion as to what the majority interpretation of Islam is. With a population of roughly thirty million, Saudi Arabia has less than three percent of the total world population of Muslims. Furthermore, considering that there have been consistent Arab Spring protests within Saudi Arabia, and King Abdullah has granted women's suffrage for the upcoming election, it is worth noting that Wahhabism is slowly losing its grip on the Saudi state. Every King since 1953 has been a direct son of Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia. The succession laws in Saudi Arabia are incredibly complicated due to the fact that Ibn Saud fathered a mind-boggling forty-five sons, of which thirty-six survived to adulthood and had issue. The Saud bloodline has an innate gift for longevity, and as such, the youngest son of Ibn Saud may not pass away for two decades from now. Whether at that time, the Saudi throne is still occupied by a son of Ibn Saud is for the future to determine. Currently, the law has changed so that second generation descendants of Ibn Saud may be considered for Crown Prince, but first-generation descendants still have primacy.

Obviously, Manning's trust in Assange led her to disclose the secrets over a period of months to Assange's organization. Posting something in a public place known to be frequented by certain people, it is only logical to understand that those people would see the information, and it would be foolish to think that they would not make sue of the information.

He gave it to the organization, whose only purpose is to publish it. The first leak was a test that was almost immediately put up on the site before the other information was leaked. That shows he understands what would happen. The information was also incredibly broad, and most of the documents were not even related to the Wars, they were State Department diplomatic cables.

He would have been covered under a whistleblower statute had he not violated national security by leaking classified information. There was a way to blow the whistle without exposing national secrets. It's been done before.

As I said before, justification of “the greater good” is not a defense to disclosing classified information.

I’ll concede that point. I had forgotten that whole can of worms.

We knew that Osama Bin Laden understood the concept of mobility being key to his survival. He knew that after narrowly escaping the Khartoum cruise missiles. His settling down in Abbottabad was a tactical mistake that cost him his life. We had signals and image intelligence that led many to suspect as early as 2005, that Osama was in Abbottabad, but SIGINT and IMINT are not reliable enough evidence to justify the violation of the sovereign territory of another nation-state. For that, human intelligence is needed. The persons that have the information that is vital are trained and fanatical to such a point that they would not talk with enough speed through regular interrogation procedures. There are options such as sodium thiopental that are purported to be truth serums, but their usefulness is in serious question. That leaves only physical or psychological torture as the only option to extract time-sensitive information before it has become obsolete.

The decision to utilize nuclear weapons is solely in the hands of the President, but must be agreed to by the Secretary of Defense. No person, or persons may release nuclear weapons legally without the consent of both members of the National Command Authority.

Manning had no right to release the information because she had no legality to do so no matter what the ends were.

The Constitution provides for the suspension of habeas corpus in event of rebellion or invasion. Thus, the Founding Fathers understood the concept that, in time of war, there needs to be a wider breadth of powers granted to the Federal government to protect the country and her citizens.

The War in Iraq was not prosecuted in response to the September 11 attacks, your premise is flawed.

I do not know which country I would have attacked, and if I were in the position of National Command Authority, I would have waited to determine where, exactly, those that gave the orders to execute 9/11 were. If, as it turned out to be, that Osama was in a heavily populated area, I would not have utilized nuclear weapons, but instead, done exactly what the NCA had done. That was, of course, a surgical special operations direct action assassination mission.

Obama deserves credit not for killing Bin Laden, but only for giving the order. However, it is worth noting that any President would have likely given the green light for the operation. It was a matter of waiting for enough evidence to be gathered that the raid would have a larger chance of success versus failure. In effect, what we did with Neptune Spear was an overt act of war on Pakistan. We invaded their territory without their permission to conduct an assassination. We needed to have a slew of evidence that we could point to that would justify the intrusion of Pakistani territory.

Al Qaeda is a large, compartmentalized, and largely decentralized organization. Capturing a few members would likely miss other members that may be working on a more imminent attack.

I am using my critical thinking skills, never accuse me of not using them.

These detainees engaged in a war without adhering to the rules thereof. It is a little-known fact that the Laws of War declare that if someone shall be engaging in warfare without adhering to the laws of war, they are subject to summary execution upon capture. Once captured, they do not get prisoner-of-war status and we may do whatever we wish with them.

I trust what the United States Military says about Operation Neptune Spear. The word of the civilian government is largely worthless, but those wearing the uniform of this country are largely upstanding Americans who will not mince words.

My interpretation comes from understanding not just the Constitution, but the intent as communicated through writings that the Framers and other Founders made.

There is only one crime delineated within the text of the United States Constitution of 1787, and that is treason. Treason, per the Constitution, consists of providing aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States.

There were other and better means by which the United States public could have been informed as to the nature of the prosecution of the United States. I am not opposed to openness in government. However, I am vehemently opposed to jeopardizing currently ongoing United States military operations and believe that the United States should take any and all steps to ensure the safety and security of her troops. Personally, I believe Geraldo Rivera should have been charged for his drawing lines in the sand during the early stages of the Iraq War.

If the United States is Fascist, what does that make Russia?

 

I don't think the military covers those sort of services under their health care and I really doubt their correctional facilities do. So although I don't think Manning will ever have the chance to be surgically or hormonaly altered to be a woman, he may take solace in that he will have ample opportunities to be treated like a woman once he gets to Leavenworth.