Posted on Feb 11, 2015
Thoughts: Chelsea Manning now writing for The Guardian?
8.28K
32
35
3
3
0
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
"[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
Posted in these groups: 
Transgender
Security
Transgender Security
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 14
0
0
0
PO1 Autumn Sandeen
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bradley Manning commited an act of treason and therefore should not be given any kind of platform except for the hangman's noose.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Publicity plain and simple, that's all this is. I'm at a loss as to how this is even being allowed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google