Bradley Manning

French: Transgenderism Doesn’t Excuse Treason

If Bradley Manning had stayed Bradley Manning, would he still be in prison? If Bradley Manning had stayed Bradley Manning, would he be basking in celebrity, enjoying fawning photo shoots? Given the magnitude of his crimes, I dare say that he’d be in prison today if he still identified as a man. Then he’d be nothing but what he actually is, a garden-variety traitor — a faithless soldier who should count himself fortunate not to face capital punishment. It’s worth remembering what he did. He disclosed, in a gigantic document dump, more than a million pages of classified information, including information about American military operations, American diplomacy, and American allies. The Obama administration was forced to rush to safety foreign friends whom Manning had outed as helping Americans. He broke faith with every relevant provision of the Army’s warrior ethos — he abandoned his mission, he actively aided the enemy, and he acted with stunning disregard for the lives of his comrades. He did so because, acting on his own authority, he decided he wanted to stimulate “worldwide discussion, debate, and reforms.” To be clear, this wasn’t whistleblowing. He didn’t identify a specific wrong and expose it responsibly while taking care to minimize the harm of disclosure. He just disclosed documents without regard for their contents. He didn’t know if anyone would die because of his actions. He didn’t know to what extent vital missions or programs would be compromised. He just did what he wanted to do. There was no honor in his action. None. And now look at him. He’s the subject of a fawning Vogue profile and photo shoot. In fact, he’s an LGBT celebrity now, swarmed at public events and even featured at New York’s Pride March, where he waved “from a drop-top Nissan alongside Gavin Grimm.” When Trump issued a series of tweets declaring a ban on transgender soldiers in the military, media outlets flocked to cover Manning’s response. But one wonders, do the transgender soldiers actually serving look at Chelsea Manning as a poster child for trans service? But no matter. For many leftists, Manning offers the irresistible combination — radical criminal acts combined with revolutionary identity. It’s “Radical Chic” all over again, this time through the lens of latest civil-rights fashion, transgender rights. The radical quarters of the Left have a long history of excusing and celebrating even the most vile of criminals so long as they have the right revolutionary politics. Disturbingly, that celebration leaks even into organizations that are billed as “meanstream.” Recall, it was just last month the Women’s March tweeted its appreciation for convicted cop-killer and FBI most-wanted terrorist Assata Shakur: Earlier this summer, New York’s Puerto Rican Day Parade sought to honor convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera as a “National Freedom Hero.” Under pressure, he decided to “forgo” that honor, but he was featured in a float anyway — and parts of the crowd gave him a “hero’s welcome.” These kinds of celebrations are not just morally abhorrent; they’re deeply polarizing. They represent the idea that the rule of law — even when the subject is murder or treason — is contingent upon the politics and racial or gender identity of the lawbreaker. Americans on opposing sides of the ideological divide are given a signal — that when it comes to advancing the radical cause, not even human life or national security can stand in the way. There are no lines that can’t be crossed. This is what radical identity politics does. It twists and distorts normal moral analysis. It declares that the ends justify the means, and then goes even farther to say, “By any means necessary.” This is an unacceptable ethic not just for a constitutional republic but for any form of civil society. Allegedly “mainstream” media outlets, politicians, or organizations that honor or respect the likes of Manning, Rivera, or Shakur cover themselves in shame.

Agreed!  And, well said, David.  Attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French is responsible for that excellent op/ed.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  David understands better than most, what real honor is all about.

Manning to reportedly lose transgender benefits with dishonorable discharge

Chelsea Manning, the transgender soldier who leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks, will reportedly lose her military health care benefits under the terms of her commutation. The Army has been providing Manning with treatment for gender dysphoria, including hormone treatments, according to a report in Stars and Stripes. “If Pvt. Manning is discharged with a dishonorable discharge, she will lose her entitlement to (military) benefits, including gender-transition care at medical treatment facilities,” an Army spokesman said. Manning was a candidate for gender-reassignment surgery, according to the report. It would have been covered under the government’s new policy for transgender troops. The Army anticipates an appeal from Manning. Manning is more than six years into a 35-year sentence at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for leaking classified government and military documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Her sentence is now set to expire May 17. Manning was known as Bradley Manning at the time of her 2010 arrest, but revealed after being convicted of espionage that she identifies as a woman. She accepted responsibility for leaking the material to WikiLeaks to raise public awareness about the effects of war on civilians, and has said she was confronting gender dysphoria at the time of the leaks while deployed in Iraq. She attempted suicide twice last year, according to her lawyers, citing her treatment at Leavenworth. Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Manning, said the president’s action “quite literally save Chelsea’s life.” “We are all better off knowing that Chelsea Manning will walk out of prison a free woman, dedicated to making the world a better place and fighting for justice for so many,” Stangio said in a statement.

Huh?  No “IT” won’t!  It’ll probably try to commit suicide again..  The commutation of this piece of garbage was a parting finger by Obama to those of us who have served our nation in the military.  It should have been put in front of a firing squad.  Being denied tax-payer funding of its gender change treatment is a no-brainer, and a silver lining in this disgusting story.  The following article by veteran syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer addresses what this maggot did, and how it has affected our nation’s national security.

French: By Commuting Bradley Manning’s Sentence, Obama Broke Faith with the Military

It might just take going to war to truly understand the nature of military justice. During my deployment to Iraq, I was the only JAG officer at an isolated outpost near the Iraq–Iran border. I worked closely with my commander on the dizzying array of disciplinary issues that arise on deployment: Soldiers fight, they sometimes defy their officers and NCOs, and some of them take drugs. Drop 800 men far into the most stressful situations imaginable thousands of miles from home and some will crack. It’s that simple. But here’s the key to military justice: Both words matter. In the civilian system, we tend to think only of “justice.” Does the punishment fit the crime? Are we punishing the guilty? Are we vindicating the rights of their victims? But there’s an additional, supplemental goal to military justice. The Manual for Courts-Martial puts it this way: “The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.” In other words, military justice is designed to make the armed forces more cohesive and effective, in addition to punishing service members’ crimes. Military justice helps preserve the warrior ethos. The warrior ethos is simple, but profound: “I will always place the mission first, I will never accept defeat, I will never quit, and I will never leave a fallen comrade.” The amount of self-denial and self-sacrifice this requires is extreme and completely alien to most civilians. Does your job demand that you lay down your life for your colleagues? Does it demand that you follow orders even if following orders may mean death or serious injury? Do you have no option of resigning if you disagree? For a military to function well under such circumstances, it must demand a degree of obedience and trust that is hard to fathom. The obedience requirement is clear: Soldiers must obey lawful orders. The trust requirement is just as vital: To do their deadly jobs, they have to trust that the men and women around them are also willing to lay down their lives for the mission and for each other. In essence, soldiers make two simple pledges: I will obey lawful orders, and I will lay down my life for the mission and my brothers and sisters. Good commanders know that soldiers trust them to reinforce the warrior ethos with effective discipline. Soldiers who can’t be trusted can’t be coddled; violating orders, acting selfishly, or disregarding the mission can ultimately break units and armies. Given that context, it’s obvious that Bradley Manning was no ordinary “leaker.” When he dumped hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic secrets into the public domain, he violated every single tenet of the warrior ethos. He abandoned the mission. He “accepted” defeat and, through his data dumps, worked to facilitate it. He quit on his comrades, acting with utter, callous disregard for their lives. His message to his unit and to his nation was clear: He would disobey lawful orders and risk killing his comrades to, in his words, stimulate “worldwide discussions, debates, and reforms.” In such a case, commanders have a sacred obligation to protect their soldiers. It’s a matter of maintaining a bond with the men and women they lead. There can be no tolerance of true betrayal, and the military — to its credit — sought a severe sentence for Manning, attempting to make the punishment fit his crime. It fought for life imprisonment, and ultimately obtained a 35-year sentence that itself was an act of unreasonable mercy. When Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence yesterday, he signaled once again that, even after eight long years as commander-in-chief, he simply does not understand the essence of military leadership or the core of military culture. By minimizing Manning’s crimes, he violated his own obligation to men and women in uniform. It was his job to enforce the lawful military norms that have been forged through centuries of bitter battlefield experience. Instead, he violated those norms, ensuring that Manning will serve no more time than men convicted of far more mundane crimes. I have seen with my own eyes the character-building power of effective military discipline, of rehabilitating good soldiers and returning them to the fight. I have seen how punishing the craven returns resolve to fractured units. Reserve mercy for the true warriors, the courageous men and women who make mistakes. As for the traitors? Judgment should be their earthly destiny. Leave their mercy to the church.

Well said, David.  Attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French was the author of the excellent op/ed, and he absolutely nailed it.  What Obama did by commuting “its” sentence, Obama showed his disdain for the military and those who served him for eight years.  It was his final finger to all of us who have served.  As a former JAG officer with combat experience, he understands military justice like others can know.  David received the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.