Someone, Anyone, Explain This?
Manning’s sexual orientation raised in hearing
The young Army intelligence specialist accused of passing government secrets spent his 24th birthday in court Saturday as his lawyers argued his status as a gay soldier before the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” played an important role in his actions.
Lawyers for Pfc. Bradley Manning began laying out a defense to show that his struggles as a gay soldier in an environment hostile to homosexuality contributed to mental and emotional problems that should have barred him from having access to sensitive material.
They are NOT saying he didn’t do it? Only that his sexual proclivity made him do it?
BOHICA! If this becomes acceptable where will the line be drawn?
Category: Geezer Alert!
So is this supposed to support the idea that gays belong in the military?? Sounds like the defense is proclaiming that gays cannot be trusted with national security sorts of information.
That’s a pathetic reach for the defense. Sounds like Manning got the military version of the inept, liberal public defender.
So he didn’t leak the information for noble reasons like his moonbat supporters claim? For transparency and democracy? For the good of humanity?
No. He did it because he was bitter about his boyfriend breaking up with him.
Some hero.
He’s a traitor. He’s a fag. Guess that makes him a cocksucking traitor.
I think the defense is setting up a post-trial appeal based on ineffective counsel.
he’s precious.
Obviously this speaks for itself.
crap the link didn’t work.
…and that Sandusky douche was just teaching young boys Hygiene. Hi five in the face with a shovel!
Nope, no special treatment for homosexuals. That would never happen.
Sure I committed treason. But YOU made me do it! Because I’m gay and you hate me!
The defense is floating balloons to test which ones will likely rise the highest after the Article 32 hearing is concluded and a general court martial is ordered. The problem for Manning is that he made admissions and there is at least one witness who will testify that he received the gazillions of classified documents from Manning. So, what to do if you are defending a guy who is guilty as sin? You raise as many procedural issues as you can, you do your best to spotlight the failings of his superiors in allowing him to continue handling classified material, you downplay the import of as much of the wrongly released material as you possibly can, and you portray the accused as a young, very confused fellow who suffered from longstanding gender-identity problems that impaired his judgment. That’s what the defense is doing and, in the end, Manning will plea bargain, take his 20 or so years, and be gone.
From over at Politico we get:
When the prosecution objected to the initial defense questioning about Manning’s gender issues, 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.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70597.html#ixzz1gtXWW8uk
They are going for a mental incompetence verdict, which, considering he is a Liberal, is rather redundant.
@11. They defense is playing the lack of mental responsibility card. It is very, very difficult to establish. To succeed, the defense has to establish that Manning was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts at the time they were committed–as a result of a severe mental disease or defect. The subsidiary of that is for the defense to attack the offense element of premeditation by trying to establish a partial mental responsibility on Manning’s part. Whatever. Of course, his problem is that the American Psychiatric association long ago tossed homosexuality as a disease or defect. The defense is doing its job and the press cannot be trasted to understand the UCMJ proceedings or the maneuvering of the defense. It’s a non-winner.
@11/12,
Alternatively, the defense is introducing the defendant’s mental state as a factor for sentencing.
I agree that proving lack of criminal responsibility will be next to impossible. The fact he labeled disks as music CD’s shows he knew that his conduct was wrong.
But, diminished capacity might be argued to claim he was less able to refrain from an illegal act and therefore should receive a lesser sentence. The judge will decide upon the relevance and accuracy of those arguments.
Personally, I can’t see how being gay is relevant here. I heard plenty of Dear John stories when deployed, and AFAIK, no soldier who came to me for counseling broke any UCMJ regs.
[…] This ain’t Hell… is wonder what the hell Bradley Manning’s sexual orientation has to do with him breaking the law […]
So, I guess this will be called “The Twink Defense”?
Yes, Jonn, if you want to get all technical, that’s precisely what it’s called. It’s also called the oh-my-God-my-client-is-guilty-as-sin-so-I-had-better-start-laying-the-groundwork-for-mitigation-now defense.
I have a feeling a military jury won’t buy it as either a defense or for sentencing.
[…] This ain’t Hell… is wonder what the hell Bradley Manning’s sexual orientation has to do with him breaking the law […]
A related issue, possibly?
Imho, the gift of that drone and its stealth technology to Iran was certainly as noteworthy as that whole Abu Ghraib brouhaha was. I’m skeptical that it was an accident. Security is too tight and there is too much redundancy in its safeguards for that to have been an accident. It is more likely that another neurotic traitor like Bradley Manning breached security and gave that drone to Iran to undermine and to embarrass the USA, imho.
Not that this current administration’s shills in the MSM would ever question the validity of the vague and lame explanations which were given for that outrageous breach of our national security.
With you there, Brian. Been asking the same questions.
@19. I am not discounting your theory or speculation, Brian, but I would say that losing a drone to embarrass the USA is unnecessary, not as long as Obama is president.
@ #11 – “They are going for a mental incompetence verdict, which, considering he is a Liberal, is rather redundant.”
That is simply priceless, William! Hehe!
I would like to throw out the logical inconsistency that Liberals want to tell us that Gays are perfectly able and whats more willing to serve.
Now at the very beginning of the repeal of DADT one of the major gay soldier figureheads, is using the fact that he can’t serve in any serious capacity because he is too fragile with his “gender identity” issues.
It should also be noted that Lt Choi, another figurehead, is just as bad. If Liberals were smart they would not only ditch this, but they’d try desperately hard to prove that it is anything but being gay that made him do this
Of course Logic and liberalism is mutually exclusive.
I’m scheduled for court martial duty from 18-20 Jan in the NCR. Please, dear Lord, just this once…