DANIEL S. writes:

Last week’s conviction and sentencing of Bradley “Chelsea” Manning to 35 years in prison for leaking documents to Wikileaks warrants some passing comments.

First of all, it should be reiterated that what Manning leaked was essentially material any informed observer would have likely known. Much of the material was merely the dirty laundry of Washington’s diplomatic elite. As Mark Hackard observed at the time:

The secrets exposed by the leak pale in comparison to the utter vapidity and decadence of the class at the helm of the self-proclaimed “last, best hope for mankind.” Washington suffers embarrassment from such a massive hemorrhage of sensitive information, but what’s most embarrassing is the emptiness of it all. The Postmodern Empire is like Oakland- there’s no there there.

What was the most troubling revelation was not the Wikileaks documents themselves, but what the presence of someone like Bradley Manning, a sexually confused anti-American, have access to such material tells us about our military and intelligence elites. Mark Steyn saw a correlation between the leaking of Bradley and the government’s previous tolerance, even promotion, of the mass murdering jihadist Major Nidal Hasan:

One reason for the citizenry not to entrust its personal information to the government is that the big, bloated, blundering government is stupid enough to entrust it to Edward Snowden, as it was previously stupid enough to entrust it to Bradley Manning (the Wikileaks leaker). It’s only a matter of time before the halfwit leviathan entrusts it to a Major Hasan or a Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Putting aside the follies of the American government, in Thomas Fleming’s final evaluation, Manning is a traitor, pure and simple (he too compares Manning to Major Hasan):

Manning, like Major Hassan, was not driven into treason:  These two embraced it.  They could have resigned from the military and gone public with their complaints.  Instead, the one chose to reveal classified information that betrayed his comrades, while the other took the more direct route of shooting them. Of the two, I have far more respect for the Muslim who faithfully obeyed the dictates of his religion.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

Fleming actually seems to be saying he has some respect for Hasad because he was so religious! Good heavens. Why would Fleming respect someone who obeys the dictates of a false and violent religion? Perhaps he is simply saying that he finds the creepy transsexual Manning more appealing than Hasad, which is disturbing since Hasad murdered people in cold blood.

That said, Manning is repulsive. There is something so patently duplicitous and chillingly empty about him. Now we have to watch as he is elevated to fame as a transgendered prisoner. How many people were alarmed by Manning’s behavior before he leaked the information, but didn’t do anything about it for fear of being anti-homosexual? Manning and Hasad both represent dangerous groups who are favored. There is pressure to be more forgiving of individuals in these groups Neither a Muslim nor someone inclined to homosexuality belongs in the armed forces.

— Comments —

Daniel S. writes:

If I understood Thomas Fleming’s comment correctly, his respect for Major Nidal Hasan is only relative to Bradley Manning. He doesn’t respect Hasan in-and-of himself. If one compares Hasan with Manning, the former is a man devoted to his religion who carried out his convictions (i.e. waging jihad), whereas Manning was a self-loathing, sexually confused man who acted out a mix of anti-American resentment and his severe psychological illness. In the end both men are traitors and should have been treated as such.

Laura writes:

Yes, I realize he was making a relative statement. But I don’t see the superiority of Hasad’s motives.

Jeanette V. writes:

On Twitter, this has been making the rounds with Manning’s announcement. He wants to be known as Chelsea.

It says a lot about just how degraded our military has become that both Manning and Hasan were allowed to remain in the Army. As long as there are protected groups, our military is worthless.

Buck writes:

A minor point: The repulsive Pvt. Manning, as with anyone enlisted in the U.S. military can never resign. He would go straight to the brig. Major Nidal Hasan, the only modern U.S. Army officer to be authorized to wear a beard while in uniform and still drawing full pay, as an officer, had a duty to resign.

Jason writes:

Buck is incorrect, or is at least incorrect according to my own experience.  There are many ways to hasten a discharge from military service without being sentenced to jail.  A positive test for marijuana is one.

Buck writes:

I have no way of knowing what Thomas Fleming thought, but I assume that thought that an enlisted soldier could resign. He like many others, assumed that enlisted, like officers, can also resign. Honest mistake. That’s why I offered the minor correction.

Sure, any enlisted soldier could read the UCMJ and discover which offenses will get him dishonorably booted, but without brig time. Telling your CO “I resign!” is not one of them. Mr. Fleming said resign probably meaning it as the honorable thing to do.

This has been discussed several times on this site. An officer swears an oath to defend the Constitution. He swears to disobey any order that violates it. That is his primary duty – to his country. Enlisted swear to obey orders. Disobey and you’re brought up on charges. You can’t quit an enlistment.

Please follow and like us: