Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay Wikileaks soldier Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing begins today

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. PumpkinPie 16 Dec 2011, 1:28pm

    This man is my hero. He risked his freedom and liberty, not to mention his mental and physical health, to expose the evils of a destructive regime who consider themselves above scrutiny.

    I’m crossing my fingers for him, but, sadly, I really can’t see the fascistic powers-that-be giving in any time soon.

    There’s a boatload of people in this case who deserve to spend the rest of their lives in jail, and Bradley Manning isn’t one of them.

    1. de Villiers 16 Dec 2011, 8:46pm

      America is not a fascist country.

      1. PumpkinPie 17 Dec 2011, 5:44am

        I was referring to those in charge of the government and military. And by saying “fascistic” instead of just plain “fascist” I meant to imply they seem like a bunch of fascists, even if they technically aren’t.

        1. So you think Obama seems like a fascist? Compared to who? Rory the racing car driver.

          1. Jose (a different one) 17 Dec 2011, 9:00pm

            I’m guessing you think its okay them for the US to suppress details of the wanton murder and torture of civilians then?

        2. de Villiers 17 Dec 2011, 7:54pm

          I disagree. They do not seem like a bunch of fascists. I think that you do not know what fascism is or how a country looks when it is actually run by people that look like a bunch of fascists.

          1. Jose (a different one) 17 Dec 2011, 9:06pm

            You’re right, lets compare the US with the behaviour of a few fascist regimes … people disappearing, no respect for human rights, routine torture and abuse of those that oppose the regime …. blimey, seems to have them to a tee.

            Seriously I cannot believe that anyone would have anything to say in support of the US in relation to what Wikileaks had to show about the behaviour of their troops.

      2. No America is not a fascist country it is a dictatorship run by the top wealthy bankers and the rich Catholics and the CIA, who use psychological warfare on their own people to try to keep them in line and keep them oppressed and in fear and stupid.

        1. de Villiers 19 Dec 2011, 8:53pm

          Then you have never experienced fascism or a dictator if you can say that.

    2. America is not a fascist country it is a dictatorship with the top wealthy bankers and Catholics and CIA in control keeping the people down and stupid and in fear.

      1. de Villiers 19 Dec 2011, 8:52pm

        Then you have never lived under a dictator if you think that.

  2. I would be very interested in hearing the reasoning behind refusal of witnesses that could testify to Mannings psychological state … this surely is a denial of natural justice …

    I can understand the court not agreeing to call the President and Secretary of State, but not someone with intimate knowledge of Mannings health, background etc etc

    1. The tragedy is that this “Military Court” is unconcerned with implementing JUSTICE. Its primary objective will be to set an example by sacrificing Bradley Manning.

    2. Speaking from knowledge, You cannot use a medical and or mental condition in defense.

      1. @Joe

        You can use mental or medical condition in various situations in most legal scenarios including:

        i) lacking mental capacity to plead
        ii) lacking mental capacity to have the mens rea to commit an offence
        iii) mitigation

    3. I would be very interested to know the reasons as well. But I don’t see why (if necessary), a court wouldn’t agree to call the President of Secretary of State.

      1. In extreme cases, but I suspect that all the questions that would be put to them could be answered by someone not quite so senior (even if the meant secretary for defence!). I suspect that seeking the President and Secretary of State was largely a political and publicity stunt by the Mannings team.

        That does not mean I do not think the trial appears defective and lacking natural justice or transparency – I do …

  3. America will try and save face – I don’t think the future verdict is going to benefit this poor guy at all.

  4. I find the whole idea, much loved, it would seem, in America, of letting the military handle the legal trials of its members a barbaric and inhumane one. There should be no Courts Martial, just regular courts, the same courts anyone else would have to appear in.

    Also, the man should be awarded some kind of patriotic medal, not imprisoned. A healthy, well-structured, civilized society rewards and honours people who uncover injustice and speak out against it. The highest act of service one can perform for one’s nation is to point out where that nation is failing in its civilised responsibilities.

    1. Robyn Griffiths 16 Dec 2011, 3:49pm

      All countries allow their Armed Forces to handle legal trials of their members. This is because there is a difference between civilian and military law. Military law incorperates civilian law.

      I understand that this soldier is being tried under US Military law which allows trial by Courts Martial. If he was arrested by cilvilian authorties then they have the option to hand the suspect over to the military or to try them in a civvie court

      1. @Robyn Griffiths

        Indeed many countries permit the military to hold their own trials etc

        Most decent coutnries proceed on there being no meaningful dilution of natural justice whether it be a civil court or military court …

        From everything that I have seen relating to this case, there appears to be a drastic dilution of natural justice being afforded to Mannings

  5. Robyn Griffiths 16 Dec 2011, 2:51pm

    Unfortunately he is alledged to have broken the law by disclosing classified information to unauthorised parties. By doing this he (alledgedly) put lives of allied service men and women at risk and that is unforgivable. It is treason and if found guilty should be given the maximum penalty according to the law. In the UK this would a breach of the Official Secrets Act. I’m not sure what the equivilent law in the US is but it still a serious offence, I am ex British Armed Forces and used to be one of those put at risk by the sort information leaked to this grubby website that could be accused of encouraging breaches of security.

    This is not a trial it is a pre trial hearing to see if there is enough evidence to go to a full Courts Martial. The defence don’t have to give their full evidence..

    1. PumpkinPie 16 Dec 2011, 5:59pm

      There are those of us who value morality above legality. Just look at what sort of site you’re on. How many stories do we get around here of people being locked up because of their sexuality? And we certainly don’t just say “oh well, it’s the law, so that’s fair enough”.

      Would Manning’s detractors say the same of somebody who released secrets from, say, North Korea? I doubt it. The fact that America isn’t a brutal dictatorship should make no difference: its government and military have blood on their hands and the world deserves to know of their wrong-doings.

      Service people put at risk? And how many innocent people have our armies put at risk through their illegal (and more importantly, immoral) actions? The innocent deserve to be protected first and foremost, and that’s what leaks like Manning’s are about. If the lives of service people are put in danger, the blame for this lies squarely on the government whose actions necessitated such leaks.

      1. Totally agree. Australia has allays been a “Puppet of America

        and will do anything to appease America. We should never have been in Afganistan either.

      2. Dr Robin Guthrie 17 Dec 2011, 2:38am

        100% behind your argument.

        People vote for politicians based on what those politicians
        promise in order to get power.

        As law / rule makers, when these people lie, they lose the right for their laws/rules to be meaningful.

        Simply visit liveleak.com if you wish to upturn your stomach at the atrocities the bankrupt US did to the people of these countries.

        1. Robyn Griffiths 17 Dec 2011, 9:19am

          What about the morality of putting lives of allied soldier at unnesscary risk? They do include British soldiers. the wars in Iraq and Afganistan were/are NOT illegal as they had/ have UN backing. If this soldier has given classified information to that grubby website then he is guilty of treason and should be punished.

          Personlly I take his accounts of his military detention with a pinch of salt. First of all how many on here have had FIRST HAND experiance of being in military detention. I have in our guardroom whilst i was serving in the British Army. Yes it is hard but that is the purpose of detention to punish.

          Remember Private Manning VOLUNTEERED to serve in the US Armed Forces and therefore volunteered to put himself under military law. He is alledged to have broken the law. It is only fair for those charges to be heard by a court. Because he is alledged to have given away military secrets he is facing a military justice system. The same is true in the UK. I would like to ask this question if Private Manning was straight would people be calling for his release or moaning that he is being tried at all?

          What I am saying is let the judicial process take its course. it could be that this hearing might not send this case to trial. It is a pretrial hearing not a trial. It is like a magistrates court hearing in the UK for someone accused of a serious crime

          1. Let us be clear here: nothing of what Manning gave to Wikileaks was actually covered by “national security”. None of it was troop displacements, lists of infiltrated agents, anything of the sort.

            The documents he made available were ALL “embarrassing” to the government of the United States, such as Hillary Clinton’s comments about world leaders, various “opinions” by the state department regarding foreign leaders and their policies.

            These are all the type of document that should NEVER have been redacted, and were never meant to be covered by the veil of “national security”.

            So before pre-judging the guilt of Pvt. Manning, you should perhaps become aware of ALL the facts of the case.

            And yeah, that court-martial is a farce. It’s a drumhead. Manning will never get a fair hearing.

          2. Jose (a different one) 17 Dec 2011, 9:10pm

            I fully agree with Mikey. The only people whose lives were at risk were those people whose path’s crossed US overseas forces.

            The National Security/lives at risk argument is laughable.

            The deaths of the many people kills by US overseas forces is not, and its high time somebody was held to account for it, and that ‘somebody’ ain’t Manning

        2. Fully agree that, in most circumstances, following judicial process and allowing natural justice where there are allegations of wrong doing is the best thing …

          Fully agree that public servants, usually, should comply with secrecy agreements in the interests of national security and the safety of their colleagues etc etc

          Fully agree that whistle blowing is a necessary tool in the book to hold public officials to scrutiny and account …

          Where I do not agree with Robyn Griffiths is that the military court appear to not be acting with justice as their priority by refusing to allow psychological evidence and other witnesses that his defence team wish to call. Therefore, it is appropriate to have doubt and concern and express opinion in advance of the decision being made – as the necessary transparency and demonstration of justice being served appear to be absent.

          1. Robyn Griffiths 17 Dec 2011, 12:59pm

            The current hearing is not a Courts Martial or any thing close to one. It is a pre-trial hearing to see if there is enough evidence to go to a full trial. We don’t know why witnesses have been refused. It might for a number of legal reasons. Also there has to be some secrecy in a military procedure for obvious reasons as some information disclosed in court might be classified and be putting lives at risk.

            This soldier also has a history that hasn’t been reported such as being escorted from his fathers home after reportedly threatening his step mother with a butchers knife. he was also demoted in May 2010 for punching an officer in the face and facing dismissal from the US Army.

            No matter what his psychological state is, there is no excuse for alledgedly committing treason and putting his colleagues lives in danger. When you join any military organisation you also sign documents saying you will not divaulge any classified information to any unauthorised party. That goes from the newest recruit to the highest general officer

          2. @Robyn Griffiths

            Understandbly there will be an element of secrecy in a military court, but that can be resolved by having portions of the hearing in camera (private). Refusing to allow witnesses smells strongly of jeopardising Mannings right to a fair and impartial trial – which is a fundamental human right (regardless of profession, prior conduct, psychological state etc)

            The soldiers history is irrelevant to whether or not he is guilty of the crimes alleged. JUst because someone has committed an assault (which I have no way of knowing if your claim is correct or not) does not mean they have committed other offences. Nor does it mean that they are not entitled to mount a full defence.

            His psychological state is relevant. It is for the court to decide how relevant, but without having the evidence presented by those who are experts in this area and who know Manning. Psychological state could be relevant from one extreme of rendering him unfit to stand trial or mitigation

  6. Jock S. Trap 16 Dec 2011, 3:01pm

    I knew this wouldn’t be a fair trial and now we have the proof. Sadly the US justice system doesn’t take mental health issues seriously and they should so another downer on Bradley getting any kind of justice but one to fit the powers that be’s egos.
    -
    I feel for bradley, I really do.

  7. WikiLeaks is a scam, all the so called “secret” information they released has no real value in helping people and Julian Assange and the people who call themselves Anonymous are working for the CIA and other ” government intelligence agencies”. They have tricked people into believing they are going to help people and that is a lie. They are trying to control peoples thinking for their own twisted purposes using their propaganda to sway people. I have yet to see any real good these people do to help anybody. Yes they do use suckers like Manning who fall for their scam but then again the internet is full of criminals with their cons and scams and tricks to get what they want.

  8. On this issue, America has shown itself to be a bully, arresting a young man who blew the whistle on an illegal, fraudulent war. The US will ‘take it out’ on him because is wants to show its power. Over a young lad. In jail. Under psychiatric care. Genius! It should have simply fired him from his job and told him to “go away”, and the issue would have gone away too. And now this case has generated all this negative publicity, there’s no sense in this approach to human rights and justice.

  9. Cambodia Guesthouse 16 Dec 2011, 5:38pm

    Sorry but I do not agree with the majority on this one it would seem…

    He was not some ‘poor young man’, he is a US serviceman and subject to their version of the Official Secrets Act.. He committed treason, pure and simple. He can try and mitigate that all he wants, but it was treason.

    Great to hear all the ‘wallies’ wailing about ‘transparency’ and ‘knowing everything going on’… Sorry guys, but we CANNOT know everything that’s going on. There ARE many many occasions where military actions and diplomacy HAS to be conducted ‘behind closed doors’… It is NOT for a paid serviceman to decide what people should and should not know! It’s for him to do his job…or leave it.

    As for this website, ‘Wikileaks’ and it’s slimy boss, why is he trying so hard to avoid being sent back to his home country to answer the charges against him? I though we now had a European Arrest Warrant system? There IS a case to answer. I’m fed up with these people thinking they are ABOVE the law!

    1. “We CANNOT know everything that’s going on”, why then have you already concluded that he is guilty? “it was treason” “it’s for him to do his job… or leave it”. It seems to me that YOU already know what’s going on and have decided he is guilty. Do you not agree on innocent until proven guilty? The disgusting thing is how he has been treated in custody and the length of time the US are taking in putting him to trial.

      1. Cambodia Guesthouse 16 Dec 2011, 6:12pm

        Sorry, I must not have been clear in my point… When I said ‘we CANNOT know everything that’s going on’ … I was not referring to his case or trial… I was referring to the classified info he is (alleged) to have released. …

        I agree that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty… my comments are obviously based on what I believe should happen IF he is guilty… A lot of people seem to suggest that (if) he IS guilty, he should be given a medal for disclosing state secrets and classified information? It is that view I am challenging. It is NOT for a serviceman to decide what the public should and should not know..

        Regarding the way he has been treated and the length of time the US are taking to put him on trial… I cannot comment on the way he has been treated as I do not know. As for the length of time… I have no doubt this is a complex and difficult case… My god, it can take a YEAR for a criminal case to come to court in the UK… So… not so surprising.

        1. Cambodia Guesthouse 16 Dec 2011, 6:14pm

          The last i heard, the latest delay to the proceedings is because the DEFENCE team are challenging the prosectuors role and suitability to prosecute the case? As I said, many things to delay such a case like this can and do happen.

          1. You said “He committed treason, pure and simple”

        2. PumpkinPie 16 Dec 2011, 7:32pm

          Regarding Manning’s treatment in custody, he was subject to solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and humiliated in various ways such as being forced to sleep naked. The military’s actions have quite blatantly been designed to break and extra-judicially punish him, and have drawn heavy criticism from human rights organisations.

          Even if he did deserve his imprisonment, he sure as hell wouldn’t have deserved any of this. And the worst part is that, despite the fact that these human rights violations are known to the world, nobody’s ever going to face trial, or even be reprimanded, for them. Just like Guantanamo Bay.

          1. Springfield 17 Dec 2011, 6:05pm

            I sleep naked all the time and never feel humiliated.. and any inmate who has sensitive information like he has also inmates who are considered at risk like gay men are usually in some kind of protective custody which means in some jails or prisons solitary confinement. don’t like the conditions of your prison don’t do the crime.

    2. PumpkinPie 16 Dec 2011, 6:07pm

      Treason? Right, because that’s so much more important than mass-murder… Treason is a concept that belongs in a bygone age. Acts should be judged on their inherent morality, not on whether or not they fit in with a regime’s best interests.

      As for people thinking they’re above the law, did you not check out any of these leaks? There’s PLENTY of people in there who obviously think they’re above the law – both international and domestic (not to mention believing themselves to be above moral scrutiny) – and yet none of them seem to be going on trial. That’s not very fair, now is it?

      As for transparency, breaches of laws and infractions on human rights deserve to be reported. We’re talking about principled whistle-blowing here, not just random disclosure of legitimately classified information.

      1. Cambodia Guesthouse 16 Dec 2011, 6:21pm

        Again. where and who decides what is ‘randomly classified’? You? Me? or maybe those who we elect to run things and do the jobs that some of us might find distateful and difficult at times…

        I repeat…. It is not for a paid serviceman to decide what should be classified and what should be in the public domain. We cannot both have our cake and eat it… Either the rule of law must be upheld, or not… So you are sayinbg that if a Christian couple decide to take a ‘principled stand’ against anti discrimination law and deny services to gay people, that is okay? The law is the law.. Yes this man is innocent until proven guilty… But IF he is guilty, then he must face the consequences of releasing classified information… whether WE consider it important classified info or not… It was classified.

        1. PumpkinPie 16 Dec 2011, 7:24pm

          If a person knows the law, and they know that laws are being broken by their employers, it should be that person’s DUTY to make their employers’ misdeeds known. The army should not be exempt from this.

        2. dude you don’t seem to understand, IT IS THE JOB OF ANY HUMAN BEING to published any informations he have on crimes against humanity as the U.S army did. Laws are not always good, if you believe a law is morally wrong and goes against common sens you have to challenge it or change it. Also don’t go on the :: yea well christian should have the right to discriminate, BECAUSE discrimination on any base is morally WRONG. If Mahatma Gandhi had followed the law India wouldn’t be where it is today. If FLQ hadn’t done what they did Quebec wouldn’t have so many powers to defend it’s state integrity, if French hadn’t fight against monarchy they wouldn’t be a republic and so on.

          and please, over secrets and behind-the-door agreement, i choose honesty and transparency over all. It might be akward, people might not love the truth, but it’s the duty of any government to work for it’s people and people should know EVERYTHING made in their names.

      2. Cambodia Guesthouse 16 Dec 2011, 6:35pm

        “Treason? Right, because that’s so much more important than mass-murder… Treason is a concept that belongs in a bygone age. Acts should be judged on their inherent morality, not on whether or not they fit in with a regime’s best interests.”

        Sorry no, treason is very much a CURRENT legal concept and act. ‘Acts should be judged on their inherent morality’ Really? do you really want to go down that route? ‘morality’? So people should be free to break the laws depending on their own individual ‘morality’? Dangerous road to go down is that one… I can think of many people who would want to use that one to persectue US with impunity also!

        1. PumpkinPie 16 Dec 2011, 7:21pm

          The kinds of things that can get you charged for treason are already illegal in and of themselves. There’s no reason for treason to exist as some sort of icing on the cake.

  10. Judge Roy Bean 16 Dec 2011, 6:10pm

    NEWS: In Web chat logs later made public by Wired magazine, Private Manning — identified in the logs only by a screen name — discussed his feelings of depression and loneliness and his motives for diverting the secret material to a “crazy white haired dude,” Mr. Assange.
    The person in the chat logs showed a boyish glee at outsmarting the Army’s poorly protected computer system but also offered political motives, suggesting that “criminal political backdealings” should be subjected to public scrutiny.

    Where’s the damage? Where’s the harm? Spoken like a true traitor’s accomplice and a liar, er lawyer.

    So, Manning had plenty of time to consider what he had in his hands and who he was handing it over to – “a crazy…white haired dude.” He was gleeful in his Benedict Arnold role. So, give him a choice. Life in Quantico or a rope. He’s a traitor to this country who couldn’t possibly have thought through all of the scenarios of harm for what he did.

    1. Cambodia Guesthouse 16 Dec 2011, 6:26pm

      Agreed 100%

      If he is found guilty, he will be allowed to present all of his mitigation and reasoning behind his criminal behaviour before a sentence is passed. But if he IS guilty, he knew what he was doing and broke the law.. I’m sure he is sorry now!

  11. I will watch this case with interest, but I’m not sure about making further comments. Generally, commenting on a legal case which is in process is not allowed in the media. There is already speculation and hearsay in this thread, which I don’t find helpful.

  12. “Freeeee, freeeeee…Bradley Manning!”

  13. de Villiers 16 Dec 2011, 9:07pm

    From the news reports, he has been treated unfairly and in a degrading manner.

  14. Here’s a new song by legendary singer-songwriter Graham Nash and musician James Raymond (son of David Crosby) — is being released today in support of accused U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning. The free download is available on Nash’s website (www.grahamnash.com) and the Bradley Manning Support Network site http://www.bradleymanning.org.

    The release is timed to Manning’s first judicial hearing scheduled for December 16th, following more than 17-months in custody, including a year in solitary confinement that Amnesty International has characterized as “harsh and punitive.”

  15. The negative side of this case is the way the news broke the story.

    It was not “A Soldier” who was charged, It was “A gay Soldier” regardless of the nature of the alleged crime committed and evidence yet to be presented many are prejudiced against him

    Charged before the repeal of DADT the news gathered anger against him. Now he’s being judged for both being gay and the evidence against him with an already prejudiced American public.

    Military courts always tend to be harsher in their hearings and judgements to uphold the integrity of the military.

    I worry about this young mans situation both because of the way his mental state has been impaired by his inhumane pretrial treatment, How much of this has been deliberate to break his spirit and impair the integrity of his defense as a “gay Soldier” Many Americans have already judged him even before his trial begins.

    The outcome of his trial guilty or innocent has to be proven. Amongst the already prejudiced evidence is immaterial.

  16. I had no idea until reading this, on which I chanced when directed to another “Pink News” article, that Pte. 1st Class Manning was gay. Gay or straight, I feel strongly about how he is being treated. I commend you to a “mainstream” article of yesterday http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011121693328630608.html by Charles Davis on Aljazeera; you may read my comment on Charles’ blog spot
    http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/12/never-forget.html#links if you are inclined. Not only do I find myself in agreement over the Manning scandal with a self-proclaimed anarchist (Charles) but also with Peter Tatchell [!], proving that there’s a first time for everything. If Manning leaked the documents to Wikileaks he is a very courageous young man deserving of a better Commander-in-Chief, whose acquiescence in the treatment of Bradley Manning demonstrates to the world only that black folk can be equally as dishonest, self-serving and morally bankrupt as white folk.

  17. carrie baker 17 Dec 2011, 10:56pm

    Who the nations and the human rights international and un had better put on trial is the inhumane abuse and terrorism of foreing african and racist countries president dictators and their armies and police for caring out false and inhumane killings rapes and arrests of innocent vicitums, many out of racism but others just because that all these animals do as hetersexual men is rape and kiill and pillage countries and families lives, they are not civiized people the women and children are the only civilized people in those kind of countries except for the gay men and gay people, they evil men in parliment must be removed like gadafi, the reprimands and sanctions to the government alone and in must not affect the women and children, you get aid directed straight to the women and children, the abusers and corrupt governmentts is the only ones at fault and their dictatorship to bad soldiers who follow and police instead of turning on the government and saving thier families like some soldi

  18. carrie baker 17 Dec 2011, 11:03pm

    we need honorable parliments everywhere in every country its a must, men anwomen who kill innocent people or discriminate innocent people because of their wicked personal hatred and jealousy , an intimidations has to be courtmarshalled an removed, resigned, an arrested, these are monsters they do not care about the people like this ungandan president, if he cared about the people aid, he would not be harming thier children and loved ones in rapes and arrests and harrasments, he is corrupt and must be removed all african countries must be led by african women who are grandmothers who love the people , and will focus on them and the econmomies needs, not terrorism and violence like these arragant dangerous hetero men, they are animals themselves , dictating to the stable people which are the gay people and women and children, the monsters governing the humane partsof society, that leaves abuses and wars like now, the ;us and great britain , must call for the uganda presidents removal

  19. carrie baker 17 Dec 2011, 11:16pm

    Great Britains and the United states actions against uganda and afridan countries , malasia, zambabwa , some of the dutch, and the reprimand and actions to solve the problems is to remove the dictatars and their paliment who has went along with the abuses, any body in the parliment that went and stood up for the people and the people rights, they should be moved up in the parliment, seats in the governments, people who care for the citizens, the bad presidents right now must be given orders by the Europe and great britain an Us, to step down immediately or military aaction will be taken to remove you like gadaffi for your crimes against humanity against these people, and their families, you stop letting one bad man or wicked hand full destroy masses of people and ruing otherwise civil countreis that get along with other countreies as well working together with a common goal to save lives not take them to promote peace and stabiliety and liberty not terrorism and oppression and repressi

    1. you need to calm down, Carrie. You seem very obsessed with heterisexual men raping and pillaging all over the place. It doesn’t seem a healthy frame of mind to me.

    2. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 10:32am

      Does anyone read these?

      1. I used to, but now I just ignore because they bear little reflection on the specific stories being debated and give me a headache when reading through them

        1. Jock S. Trap 19 Dec 2011, 8:05am

          Must admit thats how I feel now. I used to but they are hard work so kinda gave up.

  20. Krissie Pearse 18 Dec 2011, 1:06am

    Where does the assertion that Manning is Gay come from?

    1. It now appears that Manning has gender identity issues.

  21. Poor gay sucker, the Anonymous people used him like a condom and threw him away in the trash to rot. That is the kind of evil and insane people who are in Anonymous, in fact they work with the CIA and the Right Wing Christians using psychological operations to trick and fool gays to believe their lies. Think about it, they have never really done anything but say they did something or stirred the pot up but they have never really “helped” like they said they would. They say they hate pedophiles yet the Catholics are still raping children today, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075070/Tens-thousands-children-victims-child-sexual-abuse-hands-paedophile-priests-Netherlands-1945.html, do be a pawn and fall for the Anonymous scam they are playing gays and anybody who they can get to fall for their con game.

  22. It’s sad that this young man seems to have sabotaged his life in exchange for revealing a ton of diplomatic gossip that we could probably have guessed anyway. No one, not he, the US Government, nor the foreigners they bitched about will come out of this smelling good.

    The only loss of life from this affair will be the one forfaited by an incarcerated Pvt Manning.

  23. Dr Robin Guthrie 18 Dec 2011, 5:58pm

    It should be noted that the Scottish National Party are about to capitulate to the Catholic Church and wish wash the rights of gay people yet again.

    http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/politics/snp_set_to_move_on_gay_weddings_1_2014674

    Yet another god bothering supporter of child rape screwing us again.

    1. The report I read said the SNP were likely to give equal civil marriage ….

  24. GingerlyColors 19 Dec 2011, 12:05am

    So the maximum penalty for publishing stuff on Wikileaks is death. Sounds a bit harsh. I mentioned under another article that your employer should not interfere in your private life but when you join the armed forces you effectively hand your life over to them. Work for me stops when I work out that door at the end of a shift. The army (which in the UK and the USA) is a volunteer organisation and it affects you 24/7. However the war in Iraq was illegal and Manning chose to post his views on Wikileaks. Another option would be to have gone AWOL.

    1. Robyn Griffiths 19 Dec 2011, 8:18am

      Also how many employers do you HAVE to sign a secrecy agreement which is valid for the rest of your life? Manning knew this. The offence is passing on classified information to unauthorised parties. I signed the Official Secrets Act when I was in the Army and in the Civil Service and I take that responsability very seriously as everyone who signs such a law should do. I realise that my views are not popular on here but they are my views and are based on experiance. Breaches of secrecy laws can and do cost lives and people who break such laws should never be trusted no matter who they are. I defiently don’t agree that the Iraq war was illegal as UN resoloution 1441 authorised military action. Iraq had weapons that Iraq was banned from having after Desert Storm

      Wikileaks is a grubby website that should be investigated for encouraging people to break the law

      1. GingerlyColors 19 Dec 2011, 9:55am

        Thanks for that. I have signed the Official Secrets Act myself and will be bound by it for a year after I leave my job. However I cannot see how critictsising my employer can endanger the security of my country. I can understand it if I gave our nuclear secrets to North Korea (Kim Jong Il rest in Hell!).

        1. Robyn Griffiths 19 Dec 2011, 10:59am

          It depends of the information you have access to. In the military you have access to stuff that is useful to an enemy and therefore endangers the security of your country.

          I don’t know what your job is but it sounds like a low level ( no insult intended) civil service job, Actually everyone living in the UK is bound by the Offical Secrets Act. Signing it is just a reminder to those working for the government of their reposnabilities and is valid for life. The information might be officially released after a period of time depending on the nature of the information.

          The US version is similar. the reason that they want to Courts martial Manning is because he had access to sensitive information and he allegedly passed this information to a grubby website that relies on acts of a similar nature for its content.

          1. @Robyn

            I have signed the official secrets act in at least 4 employments, and certainly 3 of those I am subject to for life (the fourth I presumed so but to be honest am not clear about).

            In the UK (and supposedly in the US) there is an established view that whistle blowers should be protected – clearly, sometimes that may require legal judgement to be exercised.

            Whistleblowers are protected for public interest, to encourage people to speak out if they find malpractice in an organisation or workplace.

            Malpractice could be improper, illegal or negligent behaviour by anyone in the workplace.

            US courts have generally upheld that whistleblowers are protected from retaliation. There are examples of protection in US law from as far back as 1863 is the False Claims Act (revised in 1986). The federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 applies protection to whistleblowers. Although the consistency is unclea

            Most whistleblower policies accept that disclosure can be either internal or external.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all