LGBT news magazine The Advocate made the claim that Barack Obama would like us to forget Bradley Manning, whom Advocate writer Victoria Brownworth called "the first openly gay political prisoner" and also "the most dangerous man in America".
The Advocate is treading some pretty dangerous waters here, in implying that:
1. Bradley Manning could have been imprisoned due to his gender identity (not the case);
2. Bradley Manning should not be in a military prison, or tried by a military tribunal, for his crime (he was an enlisted man when he leaked military documents to Wikileaks);
3. Frustration over how the military addressed his gender identity is legitimate justification to commit treason (Manning expressed the discrimination he faced as a gay servicemember as the reason he leaked documents).
According to Brownworth, Manning's treatment in the Fort Leavenworth military prison is similar to what prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are getting, and that it violates the Geneva Convention. Instead of fighting for the human rights of all prisoners in military detention, however, Brownworth makes a distinction--that Manning should receive different treatment because he is a US citizen. She does not understand that he was not a free citizen at the time of his incarceration--he was an enlisted man, and thus subject to military law as well as the US Constitution and federal law.
The question is--do Manning's actions make him a terrorist? Do his actions make him a threat to national security, or military security? The question is not whether he should receive special treatment due to his queer American status.
No comments:
Post a Comment