Thoughts: Chelsea Manning now writing for The Guardian?

PO1 Autumn Sandeen — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:53:05 -0500

Politico reports Chelsea Manning now is going to write op-eds at The Guardian. From the article:

"[Manning] will write 'occasionally from Fort Leavenworth prison on the subjects of war, gender, and freedom of information' for the British newspaper's American site, [editor-in-chief, Katharine] Viner wrote in a staff memo. Manning will not be paid."

Questions: 1) What do you think of The Guardian giving Manning a platform? 2) Do you believe what she says will represent what most transgender service members and vets believe and value? 3) As a commentator, is she representing more than herself -- is she a true representive of trans community in general?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/the-guardian-hires-chelsea-manning-202383.html

The Guardian hires Chelsea Manning

Manning will write about gender, war and freedom of information. 

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 12 at 2015 10:19 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:19:38 -0500

The last I checked prisoners were not supposed to have a way to make money outside of jobs in prison and since she is a resident of the Correctional Barracks at Fort Leavenworth how is this possible.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 12 at 2015 10:56 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:56:32 -0500

1) The guardian is a Private Press Organization. They are Profit based, and doing what they feel will make them money.

2) I don't think Manning has enough life experience overall to represent "most" of any demographic, whether it be Trans, or Vet.

3) There will be a perception that Manning is, which is worse. No one person can represent any demographic. President Obama cannot represent all Black Men, or all Men, or all people from Illinois, or all Americans, or all Democrats. Asking if manning is a "true rep of the trans community" is asking to fall into the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 12:22 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:22:53 -0500

Prisoners don't lose their constitutional rights solely by being incarcerated; however, those rights are certainly circumscribed to allow the prison to operate safely. For example, searches and seizures are permitted without warrants, or even probable cause. On the other end of the spectrum, prisoners are still protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Guards aren't permitted to randomly dole out beatings of inmates. I understand there are laws which prevent people from benefiting financially from their offenses, but without doing further research, I don't know whether that applies to military members convicted and sentenced by court-martial. But if PO1 Autumn Sandeen is correct, that doesn't seem to be an issue in Manning's case.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Feb 12 at 2015 12:49 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:49:39 -0500

Holy mackerel! I forgot all about Bradley/Chelsea Manning. So is he now a she (well can't change the DNA)? How did he get that work done? I'm guessing it makes him a lot more popular in prison.

I guess the Kinks were right Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola.

I thought you weren't allowed to make money when you were in the crossbar hotel. Isn't that why they stopped Charlie Manson from selling his hair sculptures?

I know I haven't answered the question but this is one of those stories that just leaves me with only more questions.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Feb 12 at 2015 1:06 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:06:32 -0500

PO1 Autumn Sandeen, echoing the thoughts of others on this thread, I think the preemptive question is why is the Army even allowing this to take place?

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Feb 12 at 2015 1:17 PM

Sgt Adam Jennings — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:17:11 -0500

Publicity plain and simple, that's all this is. I'm at a loss as to how this is even being allowed.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 1:25 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:25:13 -0500

All other issues aside, I hope that Manning's views are not taken as representative of all trans service members. Manning broke an oath, is serving time in prison for it and shouldn't be anybody's representative.

I would hope that any serving transgender members of the armed forces would want to be just as honorable as their fellow service members and take their oath of service seriously.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 2:41 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:41:26 -0500

Can we please not call manning a she? last time I checked he was born a dude and is still one. Back on topic, I think that the people in charge of Leavenworth should cancel that privilege, manning is a convict and does not deserve this. When and if he gets out of jail, then he can write whatever he wants

Response by CPO Bernie Penkin made Feb 12 at 2015 2:50 PM

CPO Bernie Penkin — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:50:20 -0500

Bradley Manning commited an act of treason and therefore should not be given any kind of platform except for the hangman's noose.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 12 at 2015 3:10 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:10:24 -0500

I love the manner in which you asked the question: "What do you think of The Guardian giving Manning a platform?"

Ultimately, that is the most important question in the cultural war sweeping the globe in general, and America in particular.

There are an infinite variety of viewpoints, from right to left, liberal to conservative, radical to rational, sensible to scatter-brained. Everyone has a right to whichever they choose and we who serve fight to preserve their right to choose and give voice to them all.

However, the choice remains in the hands of those with the printing presses, with the transmitters, classrooms and theaters, to determine which voices will be magnified and amplified.

It seems in the popular media - the Internet and talk radio - audiences control and they have chosen quite differently from centrally controlled media.

I find this difference fascinating.

Do you?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 5:49 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:49:44 -0500

This may not be a popular answer, but I think Chelsea should not be allowed to write for the newspaper that he/she gave all those U.S. secrets to. American authorities ought to clamp down on that, put a stop to it. She should not be a "commentator" from inside the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. I think that's just wrong -- whether it's about trans-gender issues, war, or freedom of information - whatever the topic.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Feb 12 at 2015 7:34 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:34:04 -0500

Thanks for the notice. Now I know which publication to avoid.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2015 9:26 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:26:11 -0500

If anyone follows my comments, they know what is coming next:

The operative question is why. Not "what do I think".

Why for the Guardian? Indisputably money. They will get interest (and royalties and advertising) from other media that would otherwise not be terribly interested in the topical material that Manning would likely write about.

Why for Manning? If I were to place a wager, I think Manning is continuing the Quixotic quest to legitimize his/her horrendous decisions. S/he'd love to be a folk hero for somebody, because the world of a misfit, traitorous, socially inept failed Soldier is a lonely one indeed.
For analogy, I view Manning's intent similarly to parents who sue the school to get reparations because their child committed suicide due to bullying. They don't really want the money or the change in policy. They want their guilt for not stopping the suicide to go away by getting another party to assume their guilt. Manning wants the deeds S/he committed to be BECAUSE s/he (grasping at straws):
Had to hide his/her true nature because of DADT
People were mean to him/her
The Iraq War is bad

Whatever. Manning is a scumbag. I could GAF what means Manning wants to use to justify his/her actions. Rot in Leavenworth. Don't come out.

That brings me to the motives of the US Army. Why do they allow Manning to write for the Guardian? Since all communication would be monitored, I imagine they see no harm in it. If Manning were to try to do something stupid like reveal more classified knowledge s/he might have, Manning is in for a longer stay. If Manning waxes poetic about how liberated s/he is now that s/he's undergoing changes, the Army gets good publicity regarding their treatment of the prisoner. If Manning decides that s/he is a brilliant commentator on current events, they figure they can let him/her make a fool of him/herself.

It'll be interesting to see if Manning's 15 minutes of fame is up or not.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2015 10:34 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:34:39 -0500

All this focusing on the transgender status is taking away from the real issue. Chelsea Manning is a traitor, and she deserves to rot in prison for the entirety of her sentence.

And those of you insisting on calling her Bradley and insisting she is a man, if you'd do it to this traitor, you'd do it to someone who was serving honorably. I consider that conduct unbecoming. Get over yourselves. Trans is not about you. I'm cisgender, and I don't GAF what someone else feels they need to do with their gender identity. Others' gender identity is theirs alone, and not mine to judge, and most certainly not yours.

Chelsea Manning is a traitor to the United States, nothing more, nothing less. Shut up about the trans issues, whether positive or negative, as focusing on that takes away attention from the fact that SHE IS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!