The story of 25-year-old Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, now convicted of espionage, demoted and sentenced to 35 years at Fort Leavenworth prison, has taken a bizarre turn. In the same week, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a bearded jihadist wearing an Army uniform, sat in a Texas courtroom hearing evidence of his mass murder, which will probably bring him the death penalty. Both cases raise similar questions: Did political sensitivities increase dangers that could have been avoided? Or was political insensitivity in the first place largely responsible for what occurred?
Appearing recently on NBC’s “Today” show, Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, released a letter from his client calling himself “Chelsea E. Manning” and asking for support as he seeks hormone therapy to confirm his identity as a woman. The U.S. Army responded with a statement noting that prisons provide psychiatric care to all prison inmates, but not hormone therapy and “gender-reassignment” surgery.
According to NBC News, costs for sex-change therapy range widely from $12,000 to $30,000 or higher, with ongoing expenses of up to $200 a month for hormone treatments and more for psychotherapy. Mr. Coombs, who refers to Manning with female pronouns, has said he will take action to force the Army to provide what his client wants.
Some state courts already have ruled that denial of such therapy to prisoners constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” Litigation probably won’t be necessary, however, given President Obama’s record of supporting LGBT rights. Annual White House celebrations of “LGBT Equality Month” in June have welcomed lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders, all of whom are seeking their full civil rights.
If LGBT activists successfully change Defense Department policy, the Army probably will yield to political pressure to provide the desired hormone therapy and, eventually, surgery, counseling and other expenses associated with sex-change transitions. These benefits probably will be extended not just to Manning, but to all sexual minorities who want full rights and benefits under LGBT law in the military.
The number of individual service members involved is small at this time, but opening the door to medical benefits and other family subsidies could have a magnet effect, drawing into the military greater numbers of young people who are confused about their sexuality but cannot afford therapy on their own. Perhaps pre-screening will have to explore these issues individually.
Courtroom testimony from Manning’s psychiatrist and psychologist about his seriously troubled childhood inspired compassion. Manning told Army supervisors in 2008 that he was gay, and, in 2010, sent an email to a psychologist with a photo of himself dressed as a woman. The obvious cry for help, unfortunately, was ignored.
Manning is an adult and legally responsible for his actions. He is in my estimation a hero as well, despite the court’s brutal sentence, declaring him guilty of leaking a huge trove of secret documents. Many say none of this should have happened. Under the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, they say this well-intentioned young man was not eligible for military service, much less suited to work with classified information.
Nevertheless, he was allowed to do so. He explained that his intentions were to make Americans clear about what was really happening in Iraq, not to embarrass or hurt America. Bottom line, who is really at fault, Manning or his superiors?
Army officials who retained him despite signs of serious “instability” as well as gender confusion needed to be disciplined. According to Army Times, 15 of them were. Also, this so-called “unstable” gay was subject to torture and 1,200 days of imprisonment, which will be subtracted from his sentence, along with the 112 days for torture. However there are no indications that the Department of Defense has learned appropriate lessons from the sad story of Bradley Manning. He will also be dishonorably discharged, have his rank reduced and forfeit pay. He is eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence.
Nor have we seen any recognition either that it was a mistake to retain and promote the former Colonel Hasan, another person unsuited for the military for different reasons. Some of Hasan’s Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supervisors were well aware that the underperforming psychiatrist had antagonized some students and faculty by espousing extremist Islamic views.
They nevertheless avoided taking action, even when Hasan revealed dangerous jihadist beliefs in a lengthy slide presentation that justified suicide bombings and fratricide by Muslim-Americans in the military. National Public Radio reported that officials who worried that Hasan might be psychotic also feared they might be “discriminating against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs.” The Boston Globe reported concerns that loss of the Army’s only Muslim psychiatrist hired since Sept. 11, 2001, would undermine “diversity” goals. He had explained repeatedly the core of his rage to his supervisors at various times: that he didn’t want to be deployed to Pakistan to fight his own people for the U.S. No one listened. What were they thinking?
The self-identified “soldier for Allah” was promoted and transferred to Fort Hood. In a 2009 shooting rampage, he killed 13 adults, including pregnant PFC Francheska Valez, while shouting, “Allahu akbar (God is great).”
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, expressed the hope that “diversity” would not become a casualty of the tragedy. To this day, Hasan’s bloody massacre has been compounded by the administration calling it “workplace violence,” not a terrorist attack. This while Manning leaked documents exposing unnecessary violence by American soldiers against Iraqis, and received a 35-year sentence and imminent denial of his request for gender change.
Pentagon officials have assumed these unprecedented risks, as exemplified by Hassan and Manning, while stifling dissent and warnings of problems that in the first case cost American lives. In the second case, Manning’s actions may or may not have done so. But in a third case, does it really pay to suppress or ignore the protesting voices of individuals at Guantanamo Bay? Will hope alone stop their hunger strikes and U.S. soldiers’ sexual violations towards them? Or will it take forceful personal action by President Obama himself to call a halt to the barbarity?
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. An EBook version of his book of poems “State Of Shock,” on 9/11 and its after effects is now available at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com.He has also written hundreds of articles on politics and government as Associate Editor of Intrepid Report (formerly Online Journal). Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
RSS
Are Manning and Hasan the price of political correctness in the military?
Posted on August 28, 2013 by Jerry Mazza
The story of 25-year-old Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, now convicted of espionage, demoted and sentenced to 35 years at Fort Leavenworth prison, has taken a bizarre turn. In the same week, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a bearded jihadist wearing an Army uniform, sat in a Texas courtroom hearing evidence of his mass murder, which will probably bring him the death penalty. Both cases raise similar questions: Did political sensitivities increase dangers that could have been avoided? Or was political insensitivity in the first place largely responsible for what occurred?
Appearing recently on NBC’s “Today” show, Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, released a letter from his client calling himself “Chelsea E. Manning” and asking for support as he seeks hormone therapy to confirm his identity as a woman. The U.S. Army responded with a statement noting that prisons provide psychiatric care to all prison inmates, but not hormone therapy and “gender-reassignment” surgery.
According to NBC News, costs for sex-change therapy range widely from $12,000 to $30,000 or higher, with ongoing expenses of up to $200 a month for hormone treatments and more for psychotherapy. Mr. Coombs, who refers to Manning with female pronouns, has said he will take action to force the Army to provide what his client wants.
Some state courts already have ruled that denial of such therapy to prisoners constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” Litigation probably won’t be necessary, however, given President Obama’s record of supporting LGBT rights. Annual White House celebrations of “LGBT Equality Month” in June have welcomed lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders, all of whom are seeking their full civil rights.
If LGBT activists successfully change Defense Department policy, the Army probably will yield to political pressure to provide the desired hormone therapy and, eventually, surgery, counseling and other expenses associated with sex-change transitions. These benefits probably will be extended not just to Manning, but to all sexual minorities who want full rights and benefits under LGBT law in the military.
The number of individual service members involved is small at this time, but opening the door to medical benefits and other family subsidies could have a magnet effect, drawing into the military greater numbers of young people who are confused about their sexuality but cannot afford therapy on their own. Perhaps pre-screening will have to explore these issues individually.
Courtroom testimony from Manning’s psychiatrist and psychologist about his seriously troubled childhood inspired compassion. Manning told Army supervisors in 2008 that he was gay, and, in 2010, sent an email to a psychologist with a photo of himself dressed as a woman. The obvious cry for help, unfortunately, was ignored.
Manning is an adult and legally responsible for his actions. He is in my estimation a hero as well, despite the court’s brutal sentence, declaring him guilty of leaking a huge trove of secret documents. Many say none of this should have happened. Under the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, they say this well-intentioned young man was not eligible for military service, much less suited to work with classified information.
Nevertheless, he was allowed to do so. He explained that his intentions were to make Americans clear about what was really happening in Iraq, not to embarrass or hurt America. Bottom line, who is really at fault, Manning or his superiors?
Army officials who retained him despite signs of serious “instability” as well as gender confusion needed to be disciplined. According to Army Times, 15 of them were. Also, this so-called “unstable” gay was subject to torture and 1,200 days of imprisonment, which will be subtracted from his sentence, along with the 112 days for torture. However there are no indications that the Department of Defense has learned appropriate lessons from the sad story of Bradley Manning. He will also be dishonorably discharged, have his rank reduced and forfeit pay. He is eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence.
Nor have we seen any recognition either that it was a mistake to retain and promote the former Colonel Hasan, another person unsuited for the military for different reasons. Some of Hasan’s Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supervisors were well aware that the underperforming psychiatrist had antagonized some students and faculty by espousing extremist Islamic views.
They nevertheless avoided taking action, even when Hasan revealed dangerous jihadist beliefs in a lengthy slide presentation that justified suicide bombings and fratricide by Muslim-Americans in the military. National Public Radio reported that officials who worried that Hasan might be psychotic also feared they might be “discriminating against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs.” The Boston Globe reported concerns that loss of the Army’s only Muslim psychiatrist hired since Sept. 11, 2001, would undermine “diversity” goals. He had explained repeatedly the core of his rage to his supervisors at various times: that he didn’t want to be deployed to Pakistan to fight his own people for the U.S. No one listened. What were they thinking?
The self-identified “soldier for Allah” was promoted and transferred to Fort Hood. In a 2009 shooting rampage, he killed 13 adults, including pregnant PFC Francheska Valez, while shouting, “Allahu akbar (God is great).”
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, expressed the hope that “diversity” would not become a casualty of the tragedy. To this day, Hasan’s bloody massacre has been compounded by the administration calling it “workplace violence,” not a terrorist attack. This while Manning leaked documents exposing unnecessary violence by American soldiers against Iraqis, and received a 35-year sentence and imminent denial of his request for gender change.
Pentagon officials have assumed these unprecedented risks, as exemplified by Hassan and Manning, while stifling dissent and warnings of problems that in the first case cost American lives. In the second case, Manning’s actions may or may not have done so. But in a third case, does it really pay to suppress or ignore the protesting voices of individuals at Guantanamo Bay? Will hope alone stop their hunger strikes and U.S. soldiers’ sexual violations towards them? Or will it take forceful personal action by President Obama himself to call a halt to the barbarity?
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. An EBook version of his book of poems “State Of Shock,” on 9/11 and its after effects is now available at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com. He has also written hundreds of articles on politics and government as Associate Editor of Intrepid Report (formerly Online Journal). Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.