WIKILEAKS:
PFC Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence officer responsible for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military cables and a video of a helicopter attack that killed two photographers and an Iraqi citizen, is gay. You may have already known this.
Queerty has pointed out the cute detail that Manning snuck the files out on a burned Lady Gaga CD (sigh) and Gawker has speculated vaguely that Manning’s being queer in an institution that specifically outlaws the open discussion of possibly being queer unless it’s to turn someone in to your supervisor had something to do with his leaking the documents. And now the exhaustive NYT profile of Manning claims to reveal how his “early struggles” – namely, how hard it was growing up gay – may have influenced his decision to give classified government documents to the public.
The New York Times article stops short of making any sweeping conclusions – probably to its credit – mostly it wonders if the isolation and loneliness that Manning felt in the military as a gay man who joined up largely to help pay for college was what made it so attractive to fall in with a close-knit group of Cambridge-based “hackers” whom he didn’t have to hide anything from. It’s entirely possible this is true. Short of asking Manning himself about how his life experiences and emotional state figured into his decision, there’s no way we can really know.
But the easier question to think about, and one that the NYT didn’t address, is how a gay/lesbian/trans/bisexual/queer person is situated here in terms of politics instead of personality – what it means to betray orders in order to obey a moral principle when you’re a second-class citizen, when you’re someone who’s already been betrayed by the institution you belong to.
In a lot of ways, and without setting off any right-wing fundamentalist panic attacks about the end of the world as we know it, gay people are the perfect candidates for Wikileaks-style exposes. We’re a minority population that’s not allowed the same rights and privileges as the majority, and we’re constantly reminded of it as we navigate our daily lives; the indignities we’re forced to undergo as citizens and as human beings are innumerable. Many of us identify as outsiders, as subculture – the US government, Cosmopolitan, HBO, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Pentagon, and the PTA have all made it very clear that they don’t care about us, and so speaking generally, queers really don’t care about them either.
This could be said for a lot underserved and disenfranchised groups – a major difference, though, is that queers aren’t always visible to the naked eye. With some exception, gay people don’t always bear obvious identity markers, which means that while institutional and systemic discrimination means that mainstream corporations and government offices are less likely to hire and promote minorities of any kind, it’s possible for some gay people to slip past. For instance, it’s possible for a gay man to be given a position where he has access to the classified information of an organization that openly and aggressively discriminates against him. It’s like a Gay Revolutionary’s Cookbook recipe for sabotage and exposure. When you look at it this way, really, what did they think would happen?
When soldiers under DADT are already required to lie about their identity or conversely expose their friends in order to satisfy a wildly conflicting narrative of ethics and honor, how can we act surprised when one of them seems to experience some ethical contradictions of his own?
Looking at DADT and the Bradley Manning Wikileaks scandal together, they seem so perfectly dovetailed that it’s hard to believe something on this scale hasn’t happened before. At its most basic level, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell asks soldiers to lie to their fellow soldiers and superior officers while maintaining a strict moral standard of honor and loyalty in every other respect – unless of course they find out about the lie that their comrades are required to tell, in which case they have to turn their friends and comrades in despite the strict moral standard of honor and loyalty. None of this should ever compromise the intense patriotic dedication they feel towards the US or the army. When soldiers under DADT are already required to lie about their identity or conversely expose their friends in order to satisfy a wildly conflicting narrative of ethics and honor, how can we act surprised when one of them seems to experience some ethical contradictions of his own?
Are we really that shocked that someone affected by it alternately kept an entire personality under wraps and then hemorrhaged sensitive information? It’s not that this leak was some kind of karmic repercussion for the inequity of DADT, not exactly; it’s more of a chickens-come-home-to-roost moment of watching something come full circle, something ugly and complicated and ethically confusing being born from something, well, ugly, and complicated, and ethically indefensible.
PFC Bradley Manning is facing the possibility of life in prison, and the Pentagon has demanded that Wikileaks remove the information that Manning released to them. DADT is still on Step 6,742 of the possibly endless repeal process, and there is no word even on when we will get word on the next phase. There’s one video out there of a military helicopter attack that kills three innocent people.
Maybe those are three tangentially related facts, or maybe they’re part of a bizarre sociopolitical jigsaw that someday, in the wide open future when some of these facts aren’t so painfully close, will make a coherent picture.
oh shit! this just got even more complex.
“shit just got real” as rachel might say
So, the NYTimes article seems very clear in its assessment that Manning is gay…but if you read the chat logs that ultimately led to Manning’s arrest, it seems like maybe that’s not the full story.
I can’t even pretend to speculate what’s going on inside Manning’s head, and the NYTimes doesn’t indicate any source other than Manning’s father (who clearly didn’t react well to the news that his child was gay, and may not have the full story). But without moving into the realm of pure conjecture, it’s worth looking at the chat logs:
(1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and… its important that it gets out… i feel, for some bizarre reason
(1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something
(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just… dont wish to be a part of it… at least not now… im not ready… i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…
(1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i’ve totally lost my mind… i make no sense… the CPU is not made for this motherboard…
(1:14:42 PM) bradass87: s/as boy/as a boy
(1:30:32 PM) bradass87: >sigh<
(1:31:40 PM) bradass87: i just wanted enough time to figure myself out… to be myself… and be running around all the time, trying to meet someone else's expectations
(1:32:01 PM) bradass87: *and not be
(1:33:03 PM) bradass87: im just kind of drifting now…
(1:34:11 PM) bradass87: waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged… and figure out how on earth im going to transition
(1:34:45 PM) bradass87: all while witnessing the world freak out as its most intimate secrets are revealed
(1:35:06 PM) bradass87: its such an awkward place to be in, emotionally and psychologically
(http://boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged-wikileak.html)
To me, this doesn't sound like Manning is talking about being gay.
And…Gawker clearly goes through this as well, so this isn’t news you haven’t seen. But I think it’s being left out of the MSM story. And perhaps sensibly – because it doesn’t seem like Manning has publicly discussed this (shocking though that may be), which makes it almost impossible to discuss (which is maybe why you didn’t).
I guess it’s a tough balance between making up a story that isn’t true and dismissing an individual’s possible identity based on what were presumed to be confidential conversations. And I should probably stop using words on a permanent basis. But to me, this is part of the story worth exploring.
Okay…one more comment and I’ll be done. At least, with the commenting to myself.
Because, though I certainly understand your point, I think there’s another way to look at Manning’s alleged leaks. Which is to say, not as an act of aggression/anger at a system that treats queer folks as second class citizens, but rather as an attempt at correcting what he views as a profound wrong.
Again, the chat logs (or the parts that are available, which i don’t think includes everything) are worth reviewing.
(12:54:47 PM) Adrian: What sort of content?
…
(12:59:41 PM) bradass87: uhm… crazy, almost criminal political
backdealings… the non-PR-versions of world events and crises… uhm…
all kinds of stuff like everything from the buildup to the Iraq War during
Powell, to what the actual content of “aid packages” is: for instance, PR
that the US is sending aid to pakistan includes funding for
water/food/clothing… that much is true, it includes that, but the other
85% of it is for F-16 fighters and munitions to aid in the Afghanistan
effort, so the US can call in Pakistanis to do aerial bombing instead of
americans potentially killing civilians and creating a PR crisis
(1:00:57 PM) bradass87: theres so much… it affects everybody on earth…
everywhere there’s a US post… there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be
revealed… Iceland, the Vatican, Spain, Brazil, Madascar, if its a
country, and its recognized by the US as a country, its got dirt on it
(http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html)
I don’t think these actions were born of not caring about the world, but rather of caring very very much, and wanting the world to understand what’s actually happening.
I don’t think these actions were born of not caring about the world, but rather of caring very very much, and wanting the world to understand what’s actually happening.
I agree. I think the military thrives and succeeds by instilling an honor code amongst its soldiers that it’s more important to do what the army wants you to do than it is to “care very much.”
and then it becomes about caring, about honor codes, about promising to tell or not tell the truth based on rules instead of your heart. and therefore, someone not caring about your truth might be the tipping point that makes you think — fuck that someone who denies my truth, i’m going to focus on the someones who really matter — the ones that have never asked me to lie but think they are getting the truth — other soldiers, the innocent civilians, “the american people” etc.
Gosh. If these excerpts are truly representative of the entire chat log, I think PFC Manning is an incredibly brave person. To go through such an identity crisis inside an institution that maintains so much hate for you, and that enforces such strict morality, and to then be so completely sure of your own moral principles that you betray that institution and shake up the world for the sake of truth, is truly incredible. I’m in awe. I think you’re right to call in a love story, and not an act of anger or vengeance, and that is beautiful.
So, I maybe should have clarified this in the post, but I don’t intend to talk here about Manning personally, either in terms of his personal life or orientation or his reasons for making any of the decisions he’s made. Not because I disapprove of them one way or another, but because there’s no way to know, and I hate “journalism” that’s really just “speculation.” To that end, I honestly don’t know if Manning is trans or not, but as far as we can tell Manning has always officially identified as male, and many responsible sources confirm that he’s dated men. So until Manning himself identifies otherwise, I think it make sense for the NYT and for us to call him a gay man. I’ve read the chat you quote but since it was private and we have no context for it, I don’t feel I can conclude anything from it. It seems to me like it would be even more irresponsible to use a term he hasn’t publicly identified himself as just based on speculation, you know?
As for his motivations, it seems like from the chats that have been released that he did want to do good and expose things in the military that he thought needed to be exposed, but again, I’m really only qualified to talk about the general case, not about any of Manning’s thoughts or feelings, so I guess I’ll leave that up to you guys.
I get that entirely. And I understand why you don’t want to speculate. But I also find it frustrating that, for example, the NY Times pulls the quote from the chat log: “I wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much,” he wrote, “if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me plastered all over the world press.”
They completely leave off the final part of that sentence, which Manning corrects to read “as a boy.” Speculation is irresponsible, but it seems that pulling quotes out of context like that is as well.
I don’t have an answer to this, and I don’t mean to come across exceedingly critical. I think the article is great (even where I don’t agree entirely), and I love that you’re tackling the topic. But I struggle with the idea that the way to deal with this uncertainty is to ignore it, which again, seems to be what the MSM wants to do.
*sigh*
As a U.S. military member, who happens to be homosexual, and works in a field that requires a TS//SCI clearance… It seems to me that there has to be something significantly wrong with an individual who feels drawn to leak such a large amount of sensitive information.
Furthermore, I will be saddened if it turns out PFC Manning IS in fact gay. Myself, and quite a few people leading an “alternative” lifestyle who I work with see this as a major set-back to seeing progress in the way LGBT members are seen in the armed forces.
“…how can we act surprised when one of them seems to experience some ethical contradictions of his own?”
Gay = Liability? That’s what I got from that quote.
This is a case of a person, regardless of sexual orientation, that has some deep personal issues which led to the death of innocent people.
As a person who enlisted in order to PREVENT THAT EXACT THING, I have absolutely no pity for Mr. Manning.
Thanks for your insight prolittering! As someone with virtually zero understanding of how the military actually works, I genuinely appreciate it. I have no way of knowing how Manning’s decision actually impacts people in the army, and it’s good to hear from someone who does. I don’t condone his actions or think they were appropriate just because of how the military treats gay servicemembers, but I do think that DADT is pretty insane in terms of the way it requires soldiers to act in defiance of every other value the military apparently holds, and that contradictions like that are ultimately only going to hurt the army and the country.
“This is a case of a person, regardless of sexual orientation, that has some deep personal issues which led to the death of innocent people.”
I agree 100 percent that this is a case of a person with deep personal issues. But can you further explain how these revelations led to the death of innocent people (presuming, of course, that this isn’t secret information)? Because everything that I’ve read is claiming that the information he supposedly leaked was already widely known.
I corrected myself a bit late, in saying it “could have lead” to lives being lost.
No one except Mr. Manning and the recipient know the extent of the information that could be floating around the internet. Names of informants, aliases, protected civilians in foreign countries – information bad guys would act on immediately.
If he wanted to “shed light” on the so-called evil doing our military is responsible for, there are better ways, and better forums to attempt at that.
Indeed, you did. And I missed it. Sorry about that.
I guess I mostly see Manning as a kid who, in the midst of an apparent personal crisis, made a decision with incredible repercussions that he didn’t necessarily understand, while thinking perhaps he was playing the hero.
Not that I have any special insights, but I don’t get the sense that he did it with the intent of harming anyone (though that may be the consequence). I think that his actions were probably short-sighted and indicative of an inflated sense of self-importance, but not intentionally evil.
Of course, that’s just my interpretation.
No worries, Jessica.
I agree with you in that he didn’t quite know what he was doing, nor intended physical harm to anyone. I wish he, or someone close to him, had gotten him help in order to deal with his issues.
I’m just disappointed that he’s fueled more hate in the world, whether it be towards America, the LGBT community, or the military (in Punchbowl’s last paragraph I’m getting the inkling that they think I kick puppies for a living [i’m half-joking here]).
The generalizations of the info he leaked were already known, yes. I’ve heard some people try to compare the things he leaked with The Pentagon Papers, which is not an equal comparison. The Pentagon Papers were conclusions from analysts, studies. The papers Manning leaked were uncensored front-line information/reports, filled with the names of the people who wrote them (soldiers), Afghan informants (who could be killed if Taliban/unfriendlies knew they were working with us), times, dates and locations. I agree with prolittering. If this guy is gay, it is a HUGE setback for all LGBT service members. The military is not a place where you get to play politics, even when the higher ups do. I disagree with the notion that he did this to right a moral wrong. It makes no sense to expose the names of low level grunts, they do not make the policy. What effect would that have? If his sexuality does come to be a big news item, then I see that as coming from one of two possible places, or even both: 1) opponents of DADT repeal who want to smear LGBT members as against “good order, discipline and morale” 2) people who want to propagate a state of perpetual war by smearing people who disagree with them as activists, radicals and/or people who are making this country unsafe. Just my thoughts.
**which could lead
My apologizes.
Don’t get me wrong – DADT blows. Heh.
It sucks not being able to talk freely about my girlfriend at work with people I’m not entirely secure with, although most friends/co-workers know I’m a lesbian. It does hurt my morale at times, and I’m sure it hurts others at well. My gf is also in the military, same branch, same field, same damn situation.
Bottom line is – we knew what we signed up for. We knew it would be hard, and harder because of who we are. With full knowledge of that, we still wanted to serve our country, which already requires personal sacrifice in itself.
Nothing ever really seems fair though, right?
I too as former military circa 76-80 when gay witch hunts were performed still would not betray our country or fellow service members.Like prolittering said we knew what we sighned up for. Man up or woman up or get out without taking the gay community with you.
I have to say that i think it is incredibly fucked up that Manning’s sexuality is being brought into this discussion at all. My attitude is that it is completely irrelevant, and in this day and age it is perverse to be trying to directly correlate a persons motivations and behavior with their assumed sexuality (based on a fucking Lady Gaga cd?!).
But more importantly, it is fucked up because what Manning did is what each and every ethical and caring human being should do in that situation. It was a brave thing to do, and it belittles his and our humanity to ascribe it to his sexual appetites, even if repressed. This whole line of discussion, particularly coming from the NY Times, opens the discourse up to two equally specious lines of thought: 1) The argument that gays cannot be trusted in the military, a new kind of “bad apple” theory; 2) The argument that DADT is responsible for creating resentment that then gets expressed in laudable acts of bravery (i.e. telling the world the truth about Afghanistan).
I suppose that the latter is the point being made here. But the consequence of that is to argue that if DADT didn’t exist Manning would not have leaked these documents. Which is to say, his actions were a mechanical reaction to his own personal difficulties rather than a empathetic, human reaction to the massive suffering of others. This is incredibly cynical, particularly when the little information we have indicates the exact opposite, i.e. that he did it because he was horrified at the oppression of others, not his own.
Still more importantly, the issue that we should be discussing is the fact that the U.S. government is wantonly killing thousands of civilians and using death squads in a foreign land. I really don’t give a shit who Bradley Manning gets hot for in the context of this story. Many innocent people are dying. The government is responsible. One of the few people to do something about it (Manning) is about to be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of his life.
It’s deeply disturbing.
I have to say that i think it is incredibly messed up that Manning’s sexuality is being brought into this discussion at all. My attitude is that it is completely irrelevant, and in this day and age it is perverse to be trying to directly correlate a persons motivations and behavior with their assumed sexuality (based on a Lady Gaga cd?!).
But more importantly, it is messed up because what Manning did is what each and every ethical and caring human being should do in that situation. It was a brave thing to do, and it belittles his and our humanity to ascribe it to his sexual appetites, even if repressed. This whole line of discussion, particularly coming from the NY Times, opens the discourse up to two equally specious lines of thought: 1) The argument that gays cannot be trusted in the military, a new kind of “bad apple” theory; 2) The argument that DADT is responsible for creating resentment that then gets expressed in laudable acts of bravery (i.e. telling the world the truth about Afghanistan).
I suppose that the latter is the point being made here. But the consequence of that is to argue that if DADT didn’t exist Manning would not have leaked these documents. Which is to say, his actions were a mechanical reaction to his own personal difficulties rather than a empathetic, human reaction to the massive suffering of others. This is incredibly cynical, particularly when the little information we have indicates the exact opposite, i.e. that he did it because he was horrified at the oppression of others, not his own.
Still more importantly, the issue that we should be discussing is the fact that the U.S. government is wantonly killing thousands of civilians and using death squads in a foreign land. I really don’t care who Bradley Manning gets hot for in the context of this story. Many innocent people are dying. The government is responsible. One of the few people to do something about it (Manning) is about to be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of his life.
It’s deeply disturbing.
Am I a terrible person for not completely disagreeing with his actions?
The publication of the Afghan War Diary documents was definitely out of line, because they’ve put lives in danger, but have any of you SEEN that helicopter video? it’s disgusting, and only one incident out of who knows how many. we simply don’t know how many of these things happen, and the government isn’t going to tell us.
while a lot of the government/military information is classified to protect people, a huge portion is “secret” to protect them from bad press. should the deaths of innocent people be swept under the rug and forgotten because the government doesn’t want us pissed about it? is trying to make sure deaths of innocents aren’t meaningless really betraying the United States? or is it betraying the United States military’s interests?
fuck blind nationalism, guys!
That video was decrypted at the headquarters of the icelandic national broadcasting service. Wikileaks will properly be housed here in the future. Parlement even passes a bill to expand freedom of the press(befor this we were in the 1-7 seat of the Journalists without borders list of countries by freedom of the press).
I´m not sure how i feel about this. But one thing is sure secrets are not as secret as they were. This is just an effect of the computer age.
So does anyone else find those Westboro protest signs that say things like “thank God for dead soldiers” a lot less mockable now?
What?! NO!
I just heard about Bradley Manning yesterday on Democracy Now, decided to do a little more reading, and was lead back to Autostraddle.
Here are a few things to know: When Manning saw that American soldiers were flying around in helicopters and killing innocent civilians he first took his concerns to his supervisors, who completely blew him off. He then turned to Wikileaks to free his conscious.
He has been kept in solitary confinement for 7 months. While Assange is hanging out at some rich dude’s palace, Bradley Manning is only allowed 1 hour of exercise per day. 1 hour of t.v. per day. No pillow or sheets. Not even allowed to exercise in his cell.
Our gov’t commits thousands of autrocities every year, and we know nothing about it. While you may think food aid to Pakistan is spent on food, a large portion of that is given to them to build F-16 bombers. I think Manning was corageous to stand up and do something, knowing what the consequences would be. I’m with the guy holding the sign in the picture above: Thank you PFC Manning for exposing the truth!