Chelsea Manning sets up low-tech Twitter account from prison After being held virtually incommunicado for more than three years, Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks' first US military mole, has set up a Twitter account and relayed her first messages from inside Fort Leavenworth military prison. This is my new twitter account =P — Chelsea Manning (@xychelsea) April 3, 2015 I’m hoping to stay …
"... of political bias, what they mean is that they disagree with them. Is that it?"
Absolutely! That's why some of us disagree with ALL CURRENT political biases :-)
P.S. I had to edit out your first part, it didn't fit with my global view of politics... so is that politically biased? :-)
"...is that politically biased? "
Yes! So stop it! Right Now!
I had to edit out the rest of your post because I disagree with your disagreeing with all current Political bias. You CANNOT disagree with ME because I AM RIGHT!
If you disagree with all CURRENT political bias (or opinion, if you please), then that suggests you agree with some PAST political opinion. What on Earth might those be? For myself, deactivating my vast cynicism, my ideological id (that's the psychological id, not identity ID) most resembles Neil from the "Young Ones" TV show, whom I still revere above all other heroic failures.
Would anyone read it? I have very mixed feelings over this whole affair. The politics, the role various people played in it and even the information that was released. Just seems strange that any screening the Army did before putting him then her in that job was faulty.
Or how about the fact that everything released seemed to have a bias touch on it, without hard evidence? This "leak" seems like it was cooked up like a Jessie Jackson piece. "I care, but only if I'm front page caring". The only thing I can find that MIGHT be helpful out of this whole leak is that it might of been a precursor to rising curiosities in people like Snowden...but that's a big MIGHT.
Easy, dmacleo, you'll burst a gasket, and that transphobia ain't doing your mental health any favors. A lot of people get a lot of medical care on the taxpayers' dime -- quintuple bypass heart work, fertility-related, gastric bypass, delivery (multiply by a large variable if the infant is premature), drug detox, et cetera, some of it "elective" (isn't it less risky to exercise more and put down the twinkies than get gastric bypass surgery?) and some of it not (pedestrians hit by cars and needing to be put back together). Some people will have objections to paying for some of these surgeries, but if part of the social compact with our veterans is to give them the medical care they need and if a doctor has determined that a veteran needs X, Y, and Z, then so be it. I'm sorry your local VA is, as I understand your post, understaffed, but blaming the VA's lack of adequate customer service on patients who "cost too much" is not just unfair but is misguided.
Easy, dmacleo, you'll burst a gasket, and that transphobia ain't doing your mental health any favors.
Easy, @skeptical i, you're missing the point, and your anti-Americanism isn't doing your mental health any favors.
Why should Manning get government paid elective surgery, when returning soldiers can't get government-paid life-saving surgery?
It's a matter of priorities. Which is more important? I could tell you the story of a veteran two blocks over from my me that died waiting for the bureaucracy to approve his treatments, but you don't really give a damn, do you? I'm sure you'd accuse his mother of having transphobia for agreeing with @dmacleo.
"Easy, @skeptical i, you're missing the point, and your anti-Americanism isn't doing your mental health any favors."
Did you even read his/her post? He/she *is* American, and never wrote anything that could be considered anti-American.
Anyway, both of you transphobics are missing the point. How about putting the blame on the endless billions spent on your war machine in the first place? Or the corrupt health system that overcharges for everything, and the corrupt insurance companies, and the practice of companies buying politicians.
There are far more deserved cases to critiscise for reducing your social welfare funds.
Up-voted, even though I'm vehemently anti the NHS. The NHS as-is, that is, if we could have a nationalised healthcare service that actually gave a flying fuck about the nation's health, rather than creaming it off Big Pharma, I'd be all for it.
Don't believe me…?! How many of you are on statins…? Statins are as good at preventing CHD as a meat wetsuit is from protecting you from being attacked by ravenous sharks. Statins are the primary cause of heart disease.
Http://www.drmalcolmkendrick.org. I get down-voted every time I post this, but that ain't gonna stop me.
I DO class gender reassignment as "life-saving"; I always get the impression (perhaps because I've read/heard FAR more Christian Right bullshit than is probably healthy) that transphobics view GRS as many would view cosmetic/plastic surgery, as a choice in that it's purely a lifestyle thing because they're bored of whichever sex they were born as. I can't imagine it; how can you have a relationship…? If you're a dude, but you know you're a girl - and that you're straight - what do you do…? Pretend to be gay?
I'm also no fan of the term 'gender dysphoria', as these people aren't mentally ill , you can't 'cure' these people, except with surgery and HRT.
Least these people have some hope - what of me…? I'm a non-gendered being stuck in a female body - no fucking hope for me, is there…?!
Hi, BillG: OP used pronoun 'it' referring to Chelsea; in my part of the world that is usually a symptom of transphobia. That said, trans equality has nothing to do with the real issue, which is inadequate funding for veterans' care. I believe I stated that if our social compact with veterans is that they will get the medical care they need in return for their service, we should uphold that bargain. That means ALL our veterans and ALL their care. Sorry if this struck you as anti-American, but nationalism (or the lack of it) is not relevant to believing that bargains made should be bargains kept. Second-guessing recommendations made by doctors about what is and what is not medically necessary diverts attention from the real issue -- inadequate funding -- and takes the pressure off the Congress and officials who need to own the problem and solve it. I am sorry about your neighbor's passing, and for his family's loss. Peace be unto them.
"It seems you propose that people who choose to kill and maim for a living deserve priority over those who don't. I don't think that's as uncontroversial as you appear to assume."
Its more a case of him expecting his employers to pay his medical bills. That may be OK if he was actually fulfilling his contract - but instead he broke it. Some could justifiably argue that his whole military career appears as a setup to con the military into paying for his sex-change.
campaigning for Chelsea's release from gaol?
Thaty would reduce the amount of $$$ that the US Gov spends keeping her locked up.
The sad thing is that those saving wouldn't get anywhere near the VA budget.
You should know that Governments the world over don't do that sort of joined up finance.
Why? Why not she/her/hers? Manning obviously identifies strongly enough as female as to make what cannot have been an easy decision. Is that less important than whether one's bits dangle or not?
I see the whole story as someone who was sick of keeping secrets - if you like, a woman having to pretend to be a man and so ashamed and tense having to maintain a lie. The weight of keeping what they saw as deceit secret 'burst', and personal and state secrets all came out in the open.
I'm guessing you identify as male, so how would you feel if you, with the same mind, feelings, brain, intuition, self found yourself in a woman's body? People would treaty you according to what they saw, maybe treated you as dumber, maybe paid you less, made gags about your physical looks, maybe even made you cover up and forbid you to drive without a brother accompanying you. How would that feel? Would you feel 'but hey I'm actually a man inside here'? Imperfect analogy, but I'm sure you can see the point I'm angling towards.
Basically, are you only male because of you knackers? Or do you identify with your gender strongly?
This post has been deleted by its author
Fuck off, you transphobic cunt!
It's not that someone IDENTIFIES as being the opposite sex, they ARE the opposite sex, every bit of the bits that define your gender are, in Manning's case, female. I apologise that my English isn't sufficiently proficient to,describe what I mean, but I hope you get the point.
Suggest all you fucktards go look up Laura-Jane Grace, vocalist/songwriter of punk,outfit Against Me! She didn't name her band that for no reason (when she started out, her name was Thomas).
When I joined, way back in whenever-the-fuck-it-was, I don't recall anywhere NEAR the level of bigotry and hatred there's been of late. Don't think I like what it's becoming here…
".....So that explains why he has a penis ????" More to the point, whilst Manning has managed to get his/her name legally changed to Chelsea, he/she hasn't got her birth certificate changed to female yet, so legally he/him/his still applies. And that's just a legal fact, Sarah Balfour, before you start making any hysterical and slanderous accusations of "transphobia"
A farmer friend of mine had a sheep which "identified itself as a dog". It came into houses, jumped into the back seats of cars, was (almost) house trained, and responded to sheepdog whistles and calls. It also liked to play with the sheepdogs. It would even play "fetch".
At the end of the day, it was still a sheep.
Now are you trying to tell me it was really a dog?
|FWIW it was called Henrietta
In practice, why not call it a dog? Does it really matter? The thing here is, the sheep/dog doesn't give a rats ass what you call it. A human being might actually be affected by the way we interact with him/her.
Calling a sheep a dog might become confusing when pointing it out to someone else or explaining the bahaviour of your sheep/dog. In practice using him or her pronouns to identify a person is going to matter very little (and in practice, her would AGAIN be the better and clearer indicator!)
Why are you so intent on it being him?
"In practice, why not call it a dog"
For the same reason black is black not white
For the same reason up is up not down
For the same reason left is left not right
Quite simply, because thats what it is. Anything else denigrates the language, causes confusion and hinders understanding and clarity
In other words because it was a sheep not a dog. It thought it was a dog, but it wasn't. Now can you imagine the confusion if I said it was a dog and took it to Crufts? Or if I fed it dog food? Or took it to the pub for a walk?
Now of course in certain philosophies it appears perfectly normal to make such incorrect statements
Orwell had a word for it: Newspeak. But then I guess you won't understand that. You appear to be one of those people who sees "1984" as a description of Utopia.
Way to miss the point there mate. And also way to ignore the rest of the post.
I will repeat the question clearly, how is using him to indicate Chelsea/Bradley Manning more accurate or more correct than using her? How will, in practice, anybody be able to tell (or care) if he/she has a penis?
In practice your little example of a sheep/dog is a red herring. A strawman argument. It's distracting because it's not about the same issue. A dog and a sheep are 2 different species. Calling a dog a sheep or vice versa is going to be confusing indeed but it's NOT the issue here (unless it's about a baby chimp acting like a human child, which it isn't). A more fitting example would be this: take a sheep. Is it a ewe or a ram? Walk up to the average person, point to 2 sheep and tell them to go pet the ewe. 99% of people will give you a blank stare and ask which one is the ewe. Because for all they care it doesn't matter! They're both sheep.
Now stick someone in a dress and make them look close enough to female that from a distance you can't really tell. Now put them next to a (biological) woman and tell someone to go ask 'her' for directions. AGAIN, most people will not care one of them has a penis. In practice they are both humans and using HER is perfectly acceptable.
How would you describe someone with Swyer syndrome ? Clearly, by your standard they should be male right? They have XY chromosomes and everything.
How does Androgen insensitivity syndrome fit into your world view? How can you so blindly deny not everyone who LOOKS male or female actually agrees with that diagnosis.
Why are you THIS afraid of someone not feeling like a male, that you equate it to the psychological and linguistical control of Newspeak used by IngSoc to further its power over the people? How is using female pronouns for someone who feels and self identifies as female even REMOTELY comparable to the concept of Newspeak?
Think about this. The idea of Newspeak is to define the meaning of words so rigidly and so narrowly they can only ever be used in the way the Party prescribes. Now decide which one of us is prescribing a rigidly defined use of certain words.
And then this, where the FUCK do you get the sheer balls to suggest I'd consider the world of 1984 to be a utopia? I'm not the one trying to censor people here. YOU ARE. YOU are the person trying to tell people how to act and speak and think. So if ANYONE is trying to establish something along the lines of 1984's IngSoc party it is in fact you! And if you honestly can't see that I strongly advise you to re-read it and really consider how the party is controlling it's people.
(And for those wondering, no I'm not transgender myself. I know atleast 2 of them and they are great people. I'm working a way too long night shift and people like x 7 here get on my nerves)
what an astounding display of Pavlonian responses. Your trainer (your wife???) must be proud of you. Do you drool when the toilet flushes? Do you have pinups of Barbara Woodhouse on your wall?
I'm not the one attempting to rewrite a few thousand years of cultural history by redefining words to mean the exact opposite of their intended meaning: you are, along with a few vocal Hampstead luvvies and their ilk. Words have an established meaning, and its not down to you or me to redefine that meaning. You are attempting to censor me by preventing the use of words in their correct context.
First. PavloVian responses.
Second, I'm single and have always been.
Third, kuddos on STILL missing the entire point. Him and her aren't as rigidly defined as you would like to pretend they are. Language is fluid and if it's anyones job to change the meaning of language so that it can apply to people on a non binary gender scale then it IS you and me.
Fourth, I'm not censoring you. I'm trying to convince you that maybe using a female pronoun for a male to female transgender isn't the end of the world and is maybe more accurate. YOU'RE the one saying language is rigidly defined and unyielding and it must be strictly forbidden to use language in any other way. In your own words: the Party must have loved you. You've already mastered doublethink.
I have no trouble with your objections against the person or his/her actions. You can hate her/him all you want for releasing sensitive intel. You may even object to the healthcare costs. I have a very specific problem with your objection to using female or male identifiers for transgenders. Because it shows you just plain don't understand the point.
Words have a specificity of meaning brought to us by many years of consensual contextual use. One word can have many meanings, but off-hand I can't think of one where it has two opposing meanings - except maybe in parody or as an insult. To the best of my knowledge "he" means male. "She" means female. They don't mean their opposites. Manning is a male, Until maybe if/when he has his gender-reducing surgery. Then he gets the same accolade as any other neutered animal: "It".
Going back to insults, I do have to accept that I've heard members of the gay community call each other "she" when they're trying to make an especially bitchy comment about someone - but thats never appeared to be an especially pleasant sobriquet. Is that your intent - you intend to denigrate Manning by describing him as she?
PS - amazed to see you've never been married. That means those Pavlovian reflexes were self-induced. Amazing. Do tell us though - where did you get those Barbara Woodhouse posters? Some of the other regulars here might like them.
"I simply don't regard them as having validity or relevance."
My point exactly.
"They represent the mindset of those who believe truth, veracity and accuracy are moving targets."
THEY FUCKING ARE!!!! As any scientist will tell you, today's truth isn't the whole truth and we should continually be striving to improve our understandig of the truth and accuracy. What is considered accurate today might be improved tomorrow. The absolute truth doesn't exist. Binary gender (men have a penis and testicles, women have tits and a vagina) has long been considered the truth in biology. But again, how do you fit Swyer syndrome or Androgen insensitivity syndrome into that scale? What about gays? Those that didn't fully develop a set of genitals? What about those that have a brain that developed like a females even though it's inside a male body? Binary gender isn't the whole truth and there is more to it than male and female.
This whole issue isn't even about regarding a transgender person as a certain sexe. It's what you call them. You insist on calling someone who got a sexchange an "it". I presume you would even do that to their face. This doesn't make you accure or right. It makes you an asshole!. And that is the last thing I will say about it.
"....Him and her aren't as rigidly defined as you would like to pretend they are...." Oh yes they are, both legally and in biological science. There are also very well-defined legal and biological steps Manning can take to attain female status, which he has yet to complete. It is you that is insisting all that be ignored simply because you view political-correctness as more important than law or science.
".... I'm not censoring you....." Yes you are! Worse, you're berating anyone that disagrees with you with the slander that they must be "transphobic". I have nothing against homosexuals, transsexuals, nor non-sexuals, but it doesn't make me blind to either the law or science. Your political-correctness does.
Manning has always been looking for a way to keep in touch with other people. It is important to people like Manning to keep in touch with their supporters. There is no surprise that one of those supporters are willing to have Manning dictate thoughts to them and post those thoughts on Twitter.
This is amazing. Show me another imprisoned spy who is allowed to communicate with his "followers". For that matter, show me another spy who actually has "followers". All others are treated with the vitriol and contempt they deserve.
The bastard broke security and threatened the lives of numerous people. He's in prison as a result, and prison should mean prison. No phones. No internet. No external contact except supervised visits. Certainly no pandering to his "followers". He should be thrown into a hole and left there to contemplate the wrongness of what he did. Let him fester for the next 35 years in atonement for the evil he did. Don't make him out to be some kind of hero: he's not. He's a spy who broke military security, and should be treated as such.
As for sex change surgery, why waste the money? Its better spent on military personnel who did their duty and need medical care as a result. Those guys and girls who didn't break security, who were on the front line - and suffered as a result, with harrowing injuries in some cases. Medical resources should not be wasted on a REMF who spent his whole time in the military avoiding action and plotting to breach security.
And a final plea to the editorial team here: in future, can you just ignore the bastard? Don't give him the oxygen of publicity. The less people are reminded of him, the quicker he'll slip away and vanish into the punishment routine he deserves.
If I were to go to my doctor and say "I think I'm a cat", would they sort me out with whiskers and a tail? No, I'd be treated as a mental patient.
Quisling Manning betrayed his country and his colleagues. "Oh boo hoo, I'm sick of keeping secrets."
If the whining little attention whore thinks he's a girl, he's deluded.
if your mum was a cat you'd get your balls chopped off at birth. You wouldn't get a fake vagina or other surgical enhancements
more importantly, I don't remember any similar hysteric sympathetic bullshit for the likes of other spies such as Lonetree, Ames, Walker..........
The publicity circus surrounding Manning is nauseous. If he doesn't want to be punished, he should have considered the consequences before he started on his crime spree
".....If he doesn't want to be punished, he should have considered the consequences before he started on his crime spree". But Manning is being punished by being locked up for at least eight years (hopefully much longer) and then dishonorably discharged. That is what he owes society, as decided in court. His punishment does not include the removal of his legal right to medical treatment. Personally, I'd consider his being hung, drawn and quartered as the fitting sentence for his crimes. But, seeing as I am in no way empowered to make such a decision, I have to accept the legal decision that he should receive appropriate medical treatment in the hope she may eventually return to society as a more productive citizen than the traitorous piece of scum (IMHO) he was before entering prison.
Dear NSA/US military/metadata slurpers... If you have done nothing wrong or illegal you have nothing to hide from the general public, have you?
Not so much secrets as embarrassingly disgusting military behavior revealed by HER.
35 years is a bit much compared to spy boss Petraeus getting a slap on the wrist.
Follow the money if you want to know who are the real traitors to the US citizenry.
"If I were to go to my doctor and say "I think I'm a cat", would they sort me out with whiskers and a tail? No, I'd be treated as a mental patient......" Well, yes and no. Personally, I think there is a lot more screwed up inside Manning's noggin than just a bit of gender confusion, but then we should let the actual trained and qualified medical bods make such diagnosis and recommend treatment. Personally, I'd be quite happy if the qualified doctors confirmed that Manning should be sent to a loony-bin for the rest of his life, but they haven't made such a prognosis yet, so until they do Manning should get whatever treatment he is legally entitled to. The actual cost of such treatment is not that prohibitive (http://www.howmuchisit.org/gender-reassign-surgery-cost/), but the really hilarious bit is Manning could be refused such treatment if the physicians involved decide he is not mentally fit enough to undergo treatment!
"......Quisling Manning betrayed his country and his colleagues. "Oh boo hoo, I'm sick of keeping secrets."....." Agreed, he's a traitor and has been convicted for his crimes, but that does not exempt his country from providing medical treatment whilst he serves his time. Whilst you and I may certainly consider other vets as far, far more deserving of priority, it has not been shown that Manning's treatment is actually in priority over more deserving vets, nor that it is somehow removing medical resources from more deserving vets. The general and scandalous lack of funds for treating vets existed before Manning was convicted.
Do you not feel though that by his actions, Manning has abrogated any responsibility the military has for his health? Theres a social contract - maybe unwritten - that as long as you behave in the military, then the military will look after you. He's broken that. He's now a convicted criminal, a spy. Any social contract is broken. He's just another prisoner. Would another prisoner in a non-military prison get sex change therapies? I suspect not. If he wants to become a woman, let him pay for it when he's finally released. Maybe all you bleeding heart luvvies can pay for it through a crowd-sourcing appeal.
"Do you not feel though that by his actions, Manning has abrogated any responsibility the military has for his health?....." Not quite that simple, unfortunately. Whilst Manning has broken his oath, he is still enlisted until his dishonorable discharge, so he still gets his right to medical treatment just like any other soldier also serving a sentence before discharge. He could be a convicted rapist, murderer, or child-molester, it makes no difference to his basic rights. He has taken that argument to court and won. On the medical side it seems it was considered the most effective and less costly than other forms of long term psychiatric care. I suppose the only good news is that real vets that have actually served their country now also have the precedent.
".....He's now a convicted criminal, a spy. Any social contract is broken....." Broken social contract or not, Manning still has the right as an enlisted soldier to healthcare. As regards his conviction, a court has decided his crimes and their punishment - incarceration and dishonorable discharge. I don't remember seeing withholding the right to healthcare in the military code of justice. If Manning were to be diagnosed with cancer during his/her incarceration the military would still have to pay for those healthcare costs, and that could be many, many times the cost of gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment. True, it would have been a lot cheaper to have just put him/her out of her misery, but we can't just go bending the law any way we like (well, unless you're a Clinton, allegedly).
"....He's just another prisoner....." Whilst civilian convicts do have the right to healthcare, Manning is actually still an enlisted soldier until his discharge. As such, his rights are slightly different to those of a civilian prisoner, but he is still entitled to healthcare.
35 years for breaching operational security, spying, and putting operatives at risk sounds about right.
He's not being imprisoned for his orientation. He's imprisoned because he broke trust with the military, compromised operations, and risked lives. In an earlier time he would have been shot, deservedly.
And anyway, if he's a good boy he'll get out in ten years or so.
…the level of bigotry on display here is sickening. This is NOT the El Reg I joined. In any other forum, these people would have had their posts removed and been banned - evidently, El Reg is quite content to allow such pestilence.
What I've read here is bordering on hate speech which, last I checked, was a crime.
...the level of support for a spy on display here is sickening. At any past point in history anyone showing such public empathy would have been found guilty of sedition or treason. Treason is still a crime. In some countries they still execute you for it.
3) Patreus had a long and distinguished career to balance against his alleged crimes, and his alleged crimes were select and careful leaking of material to someone he knew would not use it to attack America or her allies. Manning had a very undistinguished career, including physically assaulting a female soldier, and then he leaked everything he could get his hands on indiscriminately to someone he knew had the worst intentions.
Honestly, I don't find the generality of your posts very useful, so I'll be glad to see you go. With that said:
> …the level of bigotry on display here is sickening.
I agree that there are way too many bigots in here (it's a redtop after all). At the same time, I do find it heartening to see the normalisation that sexual orientation and gender identification issues have achieved in the last couple decades or so in many parts of the World, even in unlikely places such as the US and Latin America, to the extent that nowadays mainstream public opinion finds that sort of discrimination unacceptable.
Given this encouraging state of affairs, I think we can tolerate a few bigots, if nothing else to remind us of how horrible things would be if we hadn't reached where we are now in terms of social diversity.
> This is NOT the El Reg I joined.
That I fully agree with! Sometimes I wonder whether I am on ElReg or YouTube. Oftentimes, I find the latter's comments more interesting nowadays. My main gripe is that there are too many "know-it-alls" in here, criticising everything and everyone no matter how vague their familiarity with the subject being discussed.
Wish you happy browsing elsewhere!
Don't be too disheartened.
The membership of this forum includes an old guard contingent which got its start on defence contract monies and still adheres to a well-established mindset of "don't bite the hand which feeds you" (contrary to the logo on the masthead here actually).
Traditionally this forum seems to include a lot of posts which might fit seamlessly into threads on other sites which identify themselves as conservative or bigoted much more honestly and bravely than you would find admitted here.
The thinly-veiled threats of violence one reads here often make me wonder, but I've sat in meeting rooms full of this type for decades, and have heard private confessions of weird insanity which would curl your neurons. I'm guessing most of this lot are armchair haters (and hopefully none of the lone wolf type who actually act on what they think is a *really good idea*).
But to paraphrase a previous post here, it seems to be one of our tasks to tolerate the kooks and haters.
Actually, this thread serves to underscore the intent of Manning's actions, to belie the flag-chewing and the lock-step herd thinking, and show the types of things done behind closed doors that this type, wittingly or otherwise, actually are demanding all of us to pay for with tax dollars, blood, and, in this forum especially, lip service.
Looks like now have TWO anonymous culprits to play with.
One, who in his / her post clearly indicates sympathies aligned with what Stalin described as "useful idiots"..............Enough said there really. A deranged hangover from a frightening period in which Communism was at war with the free world, a situation to which our anonymous idiot would seem to like us to embrace and return
The other anonymous codpiece seems to believe truth is a variable, not an absolute. White is black and grey is pink. 2+2=5..or 6 or 7 or whatever he wants it to be today. Sorry, but its impossible to take anyone seriously who has such views. Truth is an absolute. Its not a moving target to change to whatever fashion happens to be popular this week.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
