Given the extreme prejudice at that time towards those in the military who admitted to psych problems, why would ANY decent superior make these matters public? He was protecting Manning. Rightly and properly.
Whistleblowers everywhere are treated like criminals for doing the right thing. I know this from firsthand experience. You can read about the retaliation I've experienced as a bank whistleblower here: http://thoughtforyourpenny.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-tale-of-missing-dog-tag.html
He's protecting him by ignoring his psych problems? I don't think that's how it works.
Well it's a good thing we have some mental health and sexual issues to focus on. It would be bad to direct attention back to the material Manning published.
It's classic ad hominem. Nothing new there, of course. Well, yes, he brought forth evidence of war crimes, but really, are you going to listen to a sexual deviant like him?
This is the sentencing phase of the trial. If demonstrating why Manning never should have been put in this position in the first place helps avoid a long sentence then I'm all for it.
I'm not so fond of the "lynching" co-opting used by this author, but once I got past that, the essay was fairly spot on:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You have a good point; I was looking from the POV of the media, not the court.
Rightly and properly, he should have and was required to inform Manning's commander of any mental health issues due to his security clearance among other things. Informing Manning's commander of these issues is not the same as making them public.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.