Should the Army Have Seen Manning Coming?

posted at 9:31 am on February 3, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

As we continue to move toward the court martial phase in the case of alleged traitor Bradley Manning, disturbing new details are coming to light. One medical officer was concerned enough over the Army private’s mental state to recommend that Manning not even be deployed overseas and his supervisor in Iraq had been keeping a log of his aberrant behavior.

A mental health specialist recommended that the Army private accused of leaking classified material to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks not be deployed to Iraq, but his immediate commanders sent him anyway, according to a military official familiar with a new Army investigation…

At Fort Drum, Manning balled up his fists and screamed at higher-ranking soldiers in his unit, said the official familiar with the Army inquiry. In Iraq, a master sergeant who supervised Manning was so concerned about the private’s mental health that he disabled Manning’s weapon in December 2009, the private’s attorney, David E. Coombs, previously said. Also in Iraq, in May 2010, Manning was demoted a rank for assaulting a fellow soldier, the Army said.

The article goes on to say that a deteriorating personal relationship may have contributed to his poor conduct leading up to the alleged release of classified documents. The investigation is now expanding outward to the point where Manning’s supervisors up the chain of command may be facing charges for not preventing the security breach.

In a way, I can absolutely sympathize with his Master Sergeant. While you always monitor sub-standard performance and apply discipline where required, you don’t give up immediately on every soldier who misbehaves. Back in the day in our command we had our share of unruly enlisted men at times, but with proper supervision many of them straightened up and went on to have successful careers. Still, the military is unforgiving in these matters and when a serious breakdown happens, those in command will be held responsible.

On a related note, another story is now indicating that Manning’s international network of cheerleaders are trying a new tactic to shield him. This time they’re claiming that he’s a U.K. citizen.

The British government is under pressure to take up the case of Bradley Manning, the soldier being held in a maximum security military prison in Virginia on suspicion of having passed a massive trove of US state secrets to WikiLeaks, on the grounds that he is a UK citizen.

Manning is a UK citizen by descent from his Welsh mother, Susan. Government databases on births, deaths and marriages show she was born Susan Fox in Haverfordwest in 1953.

She married a then US serviceman, Brian Manning, stationed at a US base near the city, and they had a daughter, Casey, in the same year. Bradley was born in Oklahoma in 1987.

Bad news, sports fans. While your average civilian might be able to claim dual citizenship on this sort of a clause, Bradley Manning was born on U.S. soil to an American father, enlisted in our military of his own free will and took the oath. In short… he’s ours. He is subject to the UCMJ like any other service member and the Brits have no business getting involved in the matter.

Nice try, though. We’ll give you bonus points for creative thinking. But Manning stays where he is until if / when he comes to court martial. And that will happen on the military’s timetable, not the media’s.

Note: This post was promoted from Hot Air’s Green Room. To see the original post and comments, go here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If the guy was receiving the services of mental health professionals … why wasn’t his clearance at the very least suspended?

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Like Karen said to Jack: You could see his gayness from space.

RedRedRice on February 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM

On a related note, another story is now indicating that Manning’s international network of cheerleaders communists are trying a new tactic to shield him.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Use a firing squad on him.

OmahaConservative on February 3, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Bad news, sports fans. While your average civilian might be able to claim dual citizenship on this sort of a clause, Bradley Manning was born on U.S. soil to an American father, enlisted in our military of his own free will and took the oath. In short… he’s ours.

And treason is subject to the death penalty. Boo hoo hoo your boyfriend left you, like you’re the only one who’s ever had a lover leave you.

Betray your country and you (in the words of Dante) go to the ninth circle of Hell.

rbj on February 3, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Not only was he not suitable for overseas deployment, he wasn’t suitable for sensitive classified assignments anywhere.

Except Manning was a member of the new privileged class of disaffected minorities.

Skandia Recluse on February 3, 2011 at 9:38 AM

I’m so sick of the brits and their phony human rights violation allegations. They have no credibility.

But, I am having fun watching the blue on blue fighting with Jane Hamsher and Gleen Gleeewood vs. the less looney left. He’s being tortured, ya’ know! lol!

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

On a related note, I present to you MAJ Nidal Hassan. Please….discuss.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Back in the day in our command we had our share of unruly enlisted men at times, but with proper supervision many of them straightened up and went on to have successful careers. Still, the military is unforgiving in these matters and when a serious breakdown happens, those in command will be held responsible.

this is true.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 9:40 AM

we had our share of unruly enlisted men at times, but with proper supervision many of them straightened up and went on to have successful careers.

as a former enlisted man, I resemble this remark.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Was it an open secret that Manning was gay? Did he receive favoritism because of it?

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

you don’t give up immediately on every soldier who misbehaves.

I wonder if there were steps taken to limit his access to sensitive information following these incidents.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

This time they’re claiming that he’s a U.K. citizen.

Birthers!

faraway on February 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Did his mother keep her British citizenship?

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I love the photo. Leftards think it makes him look sympathetic. To me he just looks like a punk.

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Seems like s guy should be removed from the unit when it gets to the point of disabling his weapon. But I’m not a military person, so maybe I’m just not getting it.

myrenovations on February 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Obama should require him to produce his birth certificate to clear this up.

faraway on February 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM

This is just a preview of the fun things the repeal of DADT has in store. Get used to it.

tommyboy on February 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Damn, she’s fugly … wait, that’s a dude?

Tony737 on February 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

I wonder if there were steps taken to limit his access to sensitive information following these incidents.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

I agree. That’s the problem here. Intelligence is a fairly sensitive MOS. If the Soldier is misbehaving to the point where there’s a psychiatric recommendation not to deploy him, his MSgt had to “disable his weapon,” and he was Article 15′ed due to a fight and had his rank reduced, seems to me you find another place for him or get rid of him.

My guess? People in his chain of command knew he was gay and didn’t want a scandal during the DADT debate.

Outlander on February 3, 2011 at 9:51 AM

I’m more worried about it getting past the Navy.

Wouldn’t want Capt. Manning of the SSBN Picklekisser nuking a city cuz Lady Gaga cancelled a concert.

burnitup on February 3, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Like Karen said to Jack: You could see his gayness from space.

RedRedRice on February 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day: “I’m so gay I can’t even drive straight!”

Dark-Star on February 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Seems like s guy should be removed from the unit when it gets to the point of disabling his weapon. But I’m not a military person, so maybe I’m just not getting it.

myrenovations on February 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Its not that easy. By the time the guy gets to a unit, there has been a lot of expense sunk into recruiting, training, outfitting, and moving the guy around. IIRC, a basic trainee is about a $16K-$30K investment by the time he arrives at his first unit. NCOs are there to ‘train’ guys like that. A guy like Manning would’ve done a lot of broom, lawn and floor wax training until his head got right and he got the picture. NCO’s are good with this type of stuff. Every unit has its problem children, and any one of them can cause a helluva lot of headaches–DUI, drugs, missing formation, missing high-end equipment, wrecking vehicles, theft, as well as the loss of sensitive information. Manning is only the current highest profile problem child of the day. For every one Manning, there are a hundred other vagrants causing trouble every day–USN, USA, USMC, USCG….

truth.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM

The Marines certainly wouldn’t have been so understanding. I shudder to think what would’ve happened if I had pulled his stunts. It would have never gotten to the point where a top sergeant would have disabled my weapon–I’d be in the brig before that. And security clearance? I wouldn’t even be given access to the chow schedule.

cartooner on February 3, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Damn, she’s fugly … wait, that’s a dude?

Tony737 on February 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

My exact thought first time I saw that picture.

OmahaConservative on February 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

“Should the Army Have Seen Manning Coming?”

Seriously?

The Army didn’t see Maj. Nidal (allahu akbar) Hisan coming with an “army of islam” calling card, and an automatic weapon to murder 13 fellow soldiers, so why on earth should the Army be expected to see a bitter, belligerent homosexual with a DADT agenda, and a history of insubordination??

locomotivebreath1901 on February 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

People in his chain of command knew he was gay and didn’t want a scandal during the DADT debate.

Outlander on February 3, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Betting on this.

As others have said above, I agree on the treason aspect.
If you are found guilty of treason, you should get the ultimate allowed punishment for it, which i believe is death, correct?
This cannot be overstated.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Damn, she’s fugly … wait, that’s a dude?

Tony737 on February 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

My exact thought first time I saw that picture.

OmahaConservative on February 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

All I see is Alfred E Newman !

Dasher on February 3, 2011 at 10:15 AM

If you are found guilty of treason, you should get the ultimate allowed punishment for it, which i believe is death, correct?
This cannot be overstated.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM

1) Espionage.

(a) That the accused communicated, delivered, or transmitted any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense;

(b) That this matter was communicated, delivered, or transmitted to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly; and

(c) That the accused did so with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.
Maximum punishment.

(1) Espionage as a capital offense. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. See R.C.M. 1003.

(2) Espionage or attempted espionage. Any punishment, other than death, that a court-martial may direct. See R.C.M. 1003.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 106a—Espionage

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 10:17 AM

So if the Brits believe that he belongs to them, there is a simple solution. He was a foreign spy who stole secrets from the US. We shoot spys (or we let them go to do Playboy shoots, I forget which one).

Mo_mac on February 3, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Assault? Demotion? Mental health questions? His weapon had to be disabled (taken away?)? His clearance should have been suspended. Absolutely no question about it.

matthewbit07 on February 3, 2011 at 10:17 AM

So, how come the msm and bloggers are not investigating this aspect, i.e., that he got a pass because he was gay? Or, are they too p.c. to tell the truth?

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM

So Manning, because of his ‘special status’, like Nidal; got a “pass”.

GarandFan on February 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM

I don’t care what his sexual preference was or if those in charge of him ignored his bevavior. It’s too late to second guess all that now. He is a traitor and should be dealt with swiftly and accordingly.

kingsjester on February 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM

This time they’re claiming that he’s a U.K. citizen.

Just like Obama, if he was actually born in Hawaii. He would have been born in the US and under US jurisdiction. So he would be a US citizen. Depending on UK citizenship rules (can citizenship pass through female parent?) he might be a dual citizen too.

Too bad libs. Manning is not a natural born citizen. So you will not be able to elect THIS traitorous bastard POTUS.

tommylotto on February 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Manning is a UK citizen by descent from his Welsh mother, Susan. Government databases on births, deaths and marriages show she was born Susan Fox in Haverfordwest in 1953.

I say we let the liberals win this point if they are willing to apply the same standards of citizenship (anchor babies) to the illegal Mexicans crossing our southern boarder.

Baxter Greene on February 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

So, how come the msm and bloggers are not investigating this aspect, i.e., that he got a pass because he was gay? Or, are they too p.c. to tell the truth?

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM

d. all of the above.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Yep, just like me. My mother and father were British citizens and I was born in Tampa while my dad was in the US Navy. Now, my brother and sister, born later in Italy while my parents were still British citizens and my dad stationed in Naples, are a different story! :)

MD11Fr8Dog on February 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Is it just me, or does Traitor Manning look like Alfred E. Newman after corrective dental work?

olesparkie on February 3, 2011 at 10:36 AM

what happened to the trial for the Texas Muslim Massacre Army Doctor – or TMMAD —WTF— or —Win The Future – Trial.

wheels on February 3, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Death? Worse: a cell with chintzy wallpaper.

Akzed on February 3, 2011 at 10:40 AM

At Fort Drum, Manning balled up his fists and screamed at higher-ranking soldiers in his unit, said the official familiar with the Army inquiry. In Iraq, a master sergeant who supervised Manning was so concerned about the private’s mental health that he disabled Manning’s weapon in December 2009, the private’s attorney, David E. Coombs, previously said. Also in Iraq, in May 2010, Manning was demoted a rank for assaulting a fellow soldier, the Army said.

I’m trying to figure out what exactly is newsworthy or noteworthy in the above paragraph, particularly the emphasized parts.

This is simply the way it works in the military, or frankly in just about any other organization.

Disagreements, conflicts, and even assaults happen; just as in any organization, subordinates mouth off to superiors. They get demoted as a result. If its an assault, they may face an Article 15 or even a court-martial, leading to demotion or discharge or even confinement.

Okay. And? So? What’s the point here? In my company in Iraq, we demoted at least 3 people during the deployment. I personally conducted the investigation for one guy who got pissy before a mission and screamed at his squad leader.

Okay. And?

As for “disabling a weapon” for mental health reason, again – and? This too is common. It’s miserable over there. People get depressed and irritable. They say stuff, and you have to take it seriously.

In my own platoon alone, I had to temporarily take two soldiers bolts out of their rifles when they made comments that suggested they just might be suicidal or homicidal.

And? So? It happens. Daily. You take precautions and carry on with executing the mission.

I have heard absolutely nothing about Manning’s conduct that makes him different than 1000s of other soldiers who have a hard time while deployed. He had a “deteriorating personal relationship” back home? Oh, no kidding. You know how many guys go through divorces while deployed? How many guys find out their spouses are cheating, that their homes are foreclosed? Hell, you know how many guys in my unit lost their homes in the Tennessee flood last year?

Yeah, life sucks. It sucks harder while deployed. You suck it up and march on. You keep an eye on those who are having a hard time.

But this attempt to blame the command now is beyond absurd. It’s an insult to every officer and senior NCO who deals with the policy from higher up which requires them to go to war with the men they have … even the ones who might have some issues.

Its a hard job. And the thanks at the end of the day seems to be a kick in the teeth.

There are thousands of Bradley Manning’s downrange right now, as I type this. Their leaders are doing all they can, with what they have.

If you want to eliminate the risk that one or two of those bad eggs will actually do something rotten, then bring them all home.

Professor Blather on February 3, 2011 at 10:41 AM

So Manning, because of his ‘special status’, like Nidal; got a “pass”.

GarandFan on February 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM

With a nod to present political initiatives, I believe it is now called a waiver.

a capella on February 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM

So, how come the msm and bloggers are not investigating this aspect, i.e., that he got a pass because he was gay? Or, are they too p.c. to tell the truth?

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM
d. all of the above.

ted c on February 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM


Normally I’d agree. Knowing of someone that the military ignored, with some very serious psych issues, I think the p.c. aspect of these folks is the psych one not the muslim/gay one. (Otherwise you’d have to add redneck considering the person I know, and somehow I’m thinking big dumb psycho redneck isn’t a minority group…yet.) Military let this person BACK IN after an involuntary commitment. Um, hello? WTF? There is no way for this person to hide their “issues” either.
Not something I ever thought I’d see. 10 years of service, couldn’t have ever gotten away with that kind of stuff, or so I thought.

mauioriginal on February 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM

I’m going to catch shit for this but after reading his reasons and noticing that they aren’t really charging him I’m not sure they can prove he is a traitor, all he really did was break his secrecy oath. However according to his transcripts he did it to maintain his oath to the serve and protect the constitution. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but how is he any different than Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon papers? He didn’t sell them and he released them in such a way that his stated goal was realized which was to create a revelation of truth to the citizens of the US.

Zekecorlain on February 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Professor Blather on February 3, 2011 at 10:41 AM

I understand your position, but the primary concerns of General Casey, voiced right after the Fort Hood shooting, still ring in my ear.

a capella on February 3, 2011 at 10:47 AM

his stated goal was realized which was to create a revelation of truth to the citizens of the US.

Zekecorlain on February 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Guess they’ll have to sort that out in a trial, won’t they?
And not a civil trial.
Military.
And even if he didn’t sell them, that has nothing to do with a possible attempt to harm the US by releasing them.
If he is found guilty of espionage, then he should get the death penalty.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Like Karen said to Jack: You could see his gayness from space.

RedRedRice on February 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Well, I don’t know, British or gay? That can confuse even the best gay-dars

esnap on February 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Professor Blather on February 3, 2011 at 10:41 AM

In some ways I think it’s much harder with instant communications back home. In the bad old days, where the only comms were snail mail and MARS calls, you’d at least get a month or two into a deployment before the bad news from home started rolling in.

As to correcting junior personnel, had I ever balled my fists against one of my Sergeants, I’d have had some “instant counseling” in addition to getting the shiite jobs for the next couple of months. We also had “peer enforcers” to keep the rest of the Battery from getting punished.

If this guy is convicted, and Hasan’s trial gives me no assurance that it will happen, he should be hanged. Firing squads are for warriors.

TugboatPhil on February 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Alfred E. Newman is BRITISH?? WHo knew?

bannedbyhuffpo on February 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM

@Badger40 true that’s why I’m more than a little unsettled by these strident demands for his death when we can’t even decided if he harmed us (which it’s looking more and more like he didn’t) than perhaps it’s time to seriously discuss whether what our country considers dangerous for the citizens to know is in fact little more than window dressing for hiding their mistakes.

Zekecorlain on February 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Damn, she’s fugly … wait, that’s a dude?

Tony737 on February 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Little wonder that Code Pink claims him as one of their own.

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Was he seen by Maj. Hassan? The Army didn’t see him coming, either.

Kissmygrits on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

But this attempt to blame the command now is beyond absurd. It’s an insult to every officer and senior NCO who deals with the policy from higher up which requires them to go to war with the men they have … even the ones who might have some issues.
***
Professor Blather on February 3, 2011 at 10:41 AM

I am sympathetic to the notion that the Army may be unfairly trying to throw company grade officers and NCOs under the bus for following a policy articulated by higher-ups.

But this guy was an intelligence analyst and had a TS/SCI clearance. Because of the sensitivity of the work he was doing, I guess I expected that the Army’s tolerance for “bad eggs” in intelligence would be somewhat lower than it would be in a combat arms unit.

Outlander on February 3, 2011 at 11:48 AM

The gay thing is definitely at the root of this both with respect to Manning’s behavior and to the craven command response. Look for much, much more to come.

Mason on February 3, 2011 at 11:53 AM

NCOs are there to ‘train’ guys like that. A guy like Manning would’ve done a lot of broom, lawn and floor wax training until his head got right and he got the picture. NCO’s are good with this type of stuff.
ted c on February 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM

There is a very big difference between punitive latrine duty, and a high-status position handling classified communiques.

The problem is not that this freak wasn’t court-martialed the first time he threw a hissy fit. The problem is that he was given responsibilities wildly beyond his capacity. And it appears that happened because of, rather than despite the flamboyant nature of his politically correct and operationally dysfunctional behavior.

logis on February 3, 2011 at 12:10 PM

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 9:34 AM

That wouldn’t be PC now would it? He is gay. If he was straight and acting strange they would have handled the situation differently.

dogsoldier on February 3, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Kissmygrits on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

They saw, MANY saw. (Powerpoint seminar? remember?) They chose to do nothing because Hasan is a Muslim.

Political correctness is killing us.

dogsoldier on February 3, 2011 at 12:15 PM

TugboatPhil on February 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM

If what Professor Blather describes is accurate, then the all-volunteer Army isn’t any better than the conscript Army of Vietnam–possibly worse. Having been a Marine, I can say military discipline in the Corps must be far more professional than the Army. Sorry, there are excellent warriors in the Army and I have some good friends who served in the Army, but for the life of me, in the Marine Corps, Manning would’ve been an E-1 Private in the brig before he had a chance to pass classified documents.

cartooner on February 3, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Let the trial begin and the facts determined. And, let the chips fall where the must. If he did what he is accused of doing, there is no excuse.

SC.Charlie on February 3, 2011 at 12:38 PM

…Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but how is he any different than Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon papers?…

Zekecorlain on February 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Ellsberg was a civilian, Manning is military and subject to the UCMJ. Plus, Ellsberg got off because of FBI misconduct and by a judge who was under fire for being corrupt and needed to protect his reputation. Manning committed many more crimes than “violating his secrecy oath” whatever that is.

cartooner on February 3, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Back in the day in our command we had our share of unruly enlisted men at times, but with proper supervision many of them straightened up and went on to have successful careers.

Sorry Jazz, when a senior NCO pulls a firing pin from a subordinate’s weapon (I assume that’s what happened) that signals me the senior NCO could not get any backing from his superiors to pay attention to a young G.I.s whose problems has already exceeded the supervisory skills of his NCOs (once again, assuming they are competent) and relief or hospitalization is the next step.

he disabled Manning’s weapon

Can you appreciate the enormity of that action in a combat zone?

I can’t and I’ve been in at least three hot shooting combat zones. If he was a problem take his weapon away, temporarily put him in the clerk pool pending a psych eval and based on those results get him treatment or get him the hell out of the current environment.

Mistrust of peers is corrosive in any military environment, but never so much as in a combat environment.

This, to me, represents a monumental failure of leadership and a complete abrogation of responsibility of those required to take action however distasteful.

What the hell has PC done to my military!?!?!?

Sign me disgusted retired E9

problem child that is already beyond the

E9RET on February 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Correction: Apparently I misread. Manning wasn’t in a combat zone when his weapon was disabled. But I don’t understand that. G.I.s only carry weapons in non-combat zones when training with blanks or on the range. In both situation wouldn’t he noticed his weapon was knobbled?

E9RET on February 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Yeah let’s hurry up an enact the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell so we have some more jackasses like this turn traitor when they become disatified with military life.

TrickyDick on February 3, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Not at all, anyone who bases their entire existence and basis of judging right from wrong on their sexual urges should welcomed with open arms into the military. Now that folks who can serve while behaving openly Gay are in the ranks, peace should break out all over the world. The military has held out too long and expected too much. It isn’t fair, it hurts people feelings and it just doesn’t feel right.

Hening on February 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Death? Worse: a cell with chintzy wallpaper.

Akzed on February 3, 2011 at 10:40 AM

The two aren’t incompatible. Oscar Wilde’s purported last words: “Either that wallpaper goes, or I do.”

PersonFromPorlock on February 3, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Note to Jazz Shaw:

Oddly enough, it appears that by British law, he is a Brit. That may give the UK government an ‘in’ if they want to get involved… and maybe they should. That ‘suicide watch’ he’s under, if it’s been accurately reported, sounds an awful lot like the Communist political prisoner’s stories that were a staple of the midcentury Reader’s Digest.

PersonFromPorlock on February 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM

This guy could have posed for Da Vinci.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Back in my day, I saw people’s clearances yanked for a lot less than this. Either things have changed drastically (and not for the better) or as others have noted, DADT was a player in this debacle.

Jasech59 on February 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM

This time they’re claiming that he’s a U.K. citizen.

So they want him charged with espionage instead of treason?

malclave on February 3, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Yeah let’s hurry up an enact the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell so we have some more jackasses like this turn traitor when they become disatified with military life have a spat with their boyfriends.

TrickyDick on February 3, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Fixed.

malclave on February 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM

show him/her the rope

Wade on February 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Given the lax security protocols on these joint databases it was only a matter of time someone would’ve done what Manning did. It was a structural/design problem, not a particular Bradley Manning problem.

AlexB on February 4, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Gay soldier.

Yes – this did factor into why he released the documents – Google it if you care.

scotash on February 4, 2011 at 3:54 AM