The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    MuddyPolitics's picture

    Breanna Manning's Twinkie Defense: 'Gays Can't Keep Secrets'

    By MuddyPolitics on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:51pm |

     

    One mind-bogglingly offensive step forward in the Bradley Manning case, one giant leap backward for the gay community.

    Turncoat to more than country

    Forget the insanity defense. Lawyers for Pfc. Bradley Manning are trying to keep their client out of prison by arguing the exact opposite of what homosexuals have been fighting against for decades: discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    Politico.com reports that in addition to other odd and apparently gender-related behaviors, Manning had “at least one” e-mail address and had created a Facebook profile under the name “Breanna Manning,” according to a military investigator.

    When the prosecution objected to the initial defense questioning about Manning’s gender issues, (Maj. Matthew) Kemkes said the questions were relevant to “whether Pfc. Manning had diminished capacity at the time of the alleged offenses.” An individual with diminished mental capacity could lack the intent necessary to be convicted of the charges facing Manning, Kemkes indicated.

    Got that?

    “Diminished mental capacity” due to “gender issues” caused Bradley (AKA “Breanna”) Manning to steal hundreds of thousands of secret military and State Department documents, download the documents onto blank CDs labeled “Lady Gaga,” and leak them to an online publisher.

    After years of fighting against a discriminating military law that forced gay soldiers to conceal their sexual orientation in order to be viewed as worthy of defending and dying for their country, and just three months after said law was repealed, Manning’s lawyers are arguing that their client’s sexual orientation led him to commit crimes against country?

    Is homosexuality, then, an illness?

    Surely there are plenty of right-wing conservatives who would argue that it is. But what about the liberal Firebaggers decked out in “Free Bradley Manning” T-shirts who scream about “cruel and unusual punishment” because his prison smock isn’t soft enough?

    How utterly insulting.

    ______________________________________

    Cross-posted from AngryBlackLady.com

    Comments

    Perhaps I am missing something.  But as I understand it the defense is not at all trying to introduce the argument that Manning had diminished capacity because he was gay.  They are suggesting that he had diminished capacity because he was suffering from some kind of serious gender identity confusion, while at the same time trying to function within a military system that is absolutely intolerant when it comes to supporting and assisting people facing such psychological difficulties.  Or perhaps they are trying to suggest that Manning was a personally unconfused transgendered individual, but forced to endure debilitating stresses due to the institutional requirement that he hide his transgendered identity.

    Most gay men, as I understand it, have no confusion about their gender identity.   They regard themselves as straightforwardly male-gendered, but just recognize that they are gay males.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 11:15pm

    Let the precedent be set: Any soldier who suffers from "gender identity confusion" cannot be trusted with state secrets.


    by MuddyPolitics on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 11:35pm

    Others have posited that what's being used is gender-confusion not homosexuality, but my impression was that this was a multiple-personality disorder argument, with a female being one of the personalities. It'd hardly be the first time MPD was used as a defense!


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 5:52am

    The correct term is Dissociative Identity Disorder, not "Multiple Personality Disorder". DID is NOT the same diagnosis as "gender confusion", and the clinical community is very divided as to whether DID actually even exists or if it's just a product of being highly suggestible.


    by Kudra on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:04pm

    I think they're actually positing that being repressed and uncertain in the closet causes diminished mental capacity, severe distress and irrational behavior.

    Which is a good thing, as it sets precedent for 10-20% of the Republican party.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 8:01am

    The Politico piece makes clear to me that it's not a "twinkie defense," right here:

    While defense lawyers occasionally asked questions suggesting that the leaked information might not have originated with Manning, a far greater defense focus was that Manning’s superiors failed to act on numerous signs that he should not have been deployed to Iraq and that he should have been stripped of his access to classified information.

    Where you apparently see a suggestion that homosexuals or transgenders shouldn't be allowed in the military, I see the suggestion that it's the responsibility of higher ups in the military to insure that mentally unstable individuals are not given important roles. It's interesting because this problem is also at the heart of the Ft Hood shooting. Few are suggesting Muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve, instead, higher ups are being blamed for being too politically correct to do something about all the warning signs coming from Major Hasan. Extra irony here: a military psychiatrist like Major Hasan would, theoretically, in an efficiently run military, be on the lookout for Major Hasan's and Bradley Manning's on verge of cracking up.

    The defense is going after blaming Manning's higher ups, looks to me so far that it's as simple as that. Manning's supporters on the left aren't going to get what they want to see, apparently. But neither is it going to be an indictment of the repeal of DADT. There wouldn't be much difference in defending a female soldier with severe PMS or a male one with latent schizophrenia, that their superiors should have seen the problematic behavior much earlier--doesn't reflect on all the other healthy service people of their gender or sexual orientation or race or religion or whatever.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:42pm

    P.S.

    Check out the Guardian's live blog on the hearing:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/dec/22/bradley-manning-hearing...

    The prosecution apparently has loads of damning forensic evidence, like

    The prosecution also claimed there was evidence that Manning had direct contact with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

    In a memo to the whistle-blowing website, the young soldier suggested that they "Sit on this information for 90 to 180 days to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect the source."

    Manning signed off: "Have a nice day".

    In the file containing the message and leaked documents was a picture of Manning, smiling into the camera.

    The defense pretty much had to go this route (i.e., a real spy, mole or treasonous soldier would have been much more careful.)

    What else is there? People need to remember that this is for a court martial, it is not a civilian trial about whistleblowing.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:13pm

    I don't see how pointing to bad decisions on the part of Manning's superiors will help one bit in Manning's defense, unless it is coupled with some claim of diminished capacity on Manning's part.

    If some guy is accused of stealing lumber from the lumber yard where he works, how does it help the defendant at all if his lawyers argue that the guy's superiors knew he was the kind of guy who would be prone to steal lumber, but they nevertheless put him to work in the lumber yard?   That might be a perfectly good reason for the company to dismiss or penalize the superiors for bad management, but it does nothing at all to diminish the thief's culpability.

    The only way you might turn that into a defense is if you claimed that the thief was suffering from some capacity-diminishing disorder like kleptomania, or depression or extreme stress.

    Similarly pointing to bad decisions on the part of Manning's superiors only helps if it is coupled with some claim of a capacity-diminishing disorder in Manning.   If you're accused of treason, it certainly doesn't help to yell, "I'm a born traitor!  Any idiot can see that!  My superiors should never have out a born traitor like me around classified information!"

    Muddy changed his complaint from his original assertion that Manning's lawyers were claiming that gays can't be trusted to keep secrets to the complaint that Manning's lawyers  were claiming the people experiencing gender confusion can't be trusted to keep secrets.  He seems to think this is an equally objectionable position to take.   But surely the fact that a defendant was suffering from any type of identity confusion, whether over gender identity, religious identity, national identity or any other aspect of one's identity, is a reasonable ground on which to mount a defense.

    It by no means follows from the fact that progressives have led the way in seeing to it that we no longer regard a gay sexual orientation as a mental illness that progressives should now take the position that there is no such thing as a psychological disorder or impairment related to gender or gender identity.  Whether one is afflicted with a psychological disorder relating to some aspect of one's identity must have something to do with how well one has integrated aspects of one's personality into a stable identity.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 4:32pm

    The only crime if it's classified info.

    If they didn't treat the info like it's classified, it waters down the crime.

    If internal video banks were like watching Youtube, no big deal.

    It's a bit similar to copyright protection - if you put your material where anyone can take it, you'll have a tough time upholding your copyright.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 5:23pm

    I don't see how pointing to bad decisions on the part of Manning's superiors will help one bit in Manning's defense, unless it is coupled with some claim of diminished capacity on Manning's part.

    But they are apparently arguing diminished capacity, that is the point of the gender confusion thing which this post is complaining about.

    I am not making the superiors thing up, Dan; read the Guardian's live blog for the quotes from closing arguments, and remember this is a hearing to challenge the appropriateness of the prosecution's case for a trial, not an actual trial.

    They were going heavy on how lax the place was, to say that it's nonsense to charge him, i.e., if they're going to do try him, why not the whole unit:

    11am: MW: Private Manning's defence challenged the investigating officer to deliver a "reality check" to the US army and government.

    In a 20 minute closing argument, civilian lawyer David Coombs lambasted the prosecution for trying to "strong-arm" a guilty plea from the suspected Wikileaks source by over charging him.

    "You are in a unique position to provide the US army with something it needs, a reality check," he opened his remarks with.

    He continued: "The government has overcharged in this case on order to strong-arm a plea from my client."

    He noted that the 22 counts against Manning would result in a sentence of150 years in total.

    "But the government was not satisfied. They also charged him with aiding the enemy. And even though in a benevolent gesture, apparently, they said they would not be seeking the death penalty, the death penalty is what that carries. And if not death penalty then life without parole."

    The defence also pointed towards failings in the change of command and lax controls in the intelligence unit he served.

    "It was a lawless unit when it came to information assurance. They did not follow rules, they did not follow standards," Coombs said

    This, the lawyer added, "smacks in the face of justice"

    Also, their emphasis on the high number of serious charges being out of line is simpatico with what Daniel Ellsberg says in a short interview at the top of the Guardian blog right now (@ 2:00 pm mark.) Obviously they were going for the judge to throw out some or all of the charges, as Ellsberg's were thrown out. I.E., if someone or something should be on trial here, it ain't this one guy.

    Edit to add: unforunately for those making the Ellsberg argument, as I stressed before, Manning is an enlisted soldier, Ellsberg was a civilian, and this is regarding a court martial, not a civilian trial (with soldiers subject to higher standards from their organization on many fronts) On the other hand, if the prosecution is talking following orders and procedure, and the defense can make the case that there was no order or orders or guidance of any kind, that the whole place was out of order?


    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 10:19pm

    I cannot recall who said it right at this moment, but:

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT MAN!

    And I understand the drawbacks but this Wikileaks thing really bothers me.

    LET IT ALL HANG OUT.

    Kind of a 60's view of free speech.

    The leaders are mad because they do not wish to be found out.

    Now pretend you represent the 'bastard'.

    Well you come up with whatever defenses are available and if they are not available you attempt to make them available.

    That is the purpose of the adversary system.


    by Richard Day on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:59pm

    Wha happen?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 6:18pm