PFC Bradley Manning’s Defense May Offend Homosexuals
A few articles have begun to take umbrage at the apparent planned defense of accused Wikileaker PFC Bradley Manning: In essence, the nation’s worst release of classified information was the fault of the US military — not Manning. The military was the one who allowed him to keep his clearance despite knowing he had ‘issues’ with his sexuality.
Manning’s lawyers argued his superiors failed to address his struggles with gender-identity disorder…
The defense team says Manning was nearly paralyzed by internal struggles over his belief that he was a woman trapped in a man’s body. They say his chain of command failed to suspend his access to classified data despite clear signs of emotional distress…
That defense, of course, would likely be the first time someone personally claimed some form of “gender identity disorder” or homosexuality made them unfit for duty. (It is not the first time this form of defense was at least partially used, however.)
Perceptions or accusations of homosexuality were, at one point, potential disqualifiers for higher security clearances.
The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer was more than happy to agree with the apparent planned defense of Manning’s lawyers, saying there is empirical evidence homosexuals in the military are an “increased risk to national security.” (Those are attention-getting buzz words; Michael Weinstein has used similar terms to describe Christians in the military, though he prefers the “national security threat” mantra.)
Gender identity disorder is not the same as homosexuality.
Now, having covered your massive ignorance on that issue perhaps we could get an answer to the questions i have been asking you.
1) Whose marriage would have been defended if my friends had not been allowed to get married?
2) Which policy has been implemented in the military that is against the morality of the majority of American citizens?
His defense is BS, and the AFA’s Bryan Fisher attempt to agree is also BS. There has NEVER been empirical evidence homosexuals are an increased risk to “US” national security despite a study from a foreign country. This boy (if found guilty) cannot use any psycho-babble excuse for committing treason, wearing a dress or not. If anything, maybe his superiors can clam insanity for letting the poor boy deploy, but I guess no one can really get out of this unless they are on their death bed anyway.
I’m surprised you mention AFA in your blog JD, for one thing they despise other religions of the free world but their’s.
@watchtower
It is simply one way the “defense” has been extrapolated. No endorsement intended.
Gender identity disorder is not the same as homosexuality.
Now, having covered your massive ignorance on that issue perhaps we could get an answer to the questions i have been asking you.
1) Whose marriage would have been defended if my friends had not been allowed to get married?
2) Which policy has been implemented in the military that is against the morality of the majority of American citizens?