WikiLeaks "Leaker" Bradley Manning- Gays in the Military gone awry?

[EL PRESIDENTE]

And how would you provide evidence of harassment without stating what the harassment is?

You can say you're being harassed without admitting sexual orientation. The policy is don't ask, don't tell so they can't ask.

For example, one can say that a soldier called him a "fairy". You don't have to admit a sexual orientation, in fact, its policy NOT to do so.

 

[Paxil]

EVERYone is harrassed in the military. That is just the way it is.

 

[maxiep]

What should be done with assage?

x

He should be quietly disappeared. I vote for dumping his body at 38,000 feet over the Pacific.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

what crime did he commit?

 

[BrianFromWA]

The policy is basically that you have to completely deny, lie about, and cover up a part of your life in order to keep your job. You can be openly heterosexual in the military, but if you're gay, you need to fake it. If the policy wasn't in place, the guy could report the harassment without the fear of losing his job through outing himself.

No, it's not. It's that, if you want to GET a job in the military, you must take into account the fact that you don't have to answer questions about your sexuality, that you cannot tell about your sexuality, and you cannot be pursued for it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be allowed in the military at all. It's what I understand from the lawyers is called a "condition of employment" (but that's secondhand....I defer to the actual lawyers on here to set me straight if needed).
The guy can ALWAYS report harassment of any kind. In fact, he's trained to specifically do so. Whether it's hazing, harassment, bullying, teasing, whatever...if it's prejudicial to good order and discipline it's to be reported. The job's tough enough without letting crap like that go on, or the people doing it not being punished.

I don't think anyone is saying that the harassment justifies the act, but as a probable cause of the anger, its a viable suggestion. Also, drag queen boyfriend? I mean...really? There's a line somewhere between ignorant and being a prick.

Did you just cross it? Mine was a direct quote of the newspaper article in the OP. What do you not understand about it?

 

[MARIS61]

You realize the whole gay thing is just misdirection by the Feds because it's guaranteed to change the topic of discussion from "what exactly was revealed" to "he's gay".

See how easily they control your mind's path.

 

[MARIS61]

I'm not surprised that you think that committing treason and getting sources killed for providing information is a heroic act.

It's treason that our government keeps secrets from us.

Who got killed?

 

[Paxil]

So it is your opinion that all information the government has should be public? Sure... lets see your tax records... address, phone number... hell... how about we add a little bar under the avatar pics in this forums with current job, salary, political affiliation, number of traffic citations, criminal history...

Play Stratego with all your pieces turned but not your opponents and see how far you get Cosmo.

 

[MARIS61]

Leaks controlled by State Department, edited by press in all countries including ours to serve their own ends.

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5939

Look for US to launch a massive war against Iran in the coming year.

 

[MARIS61]

So it is your opinion that all information the government has should be public? Sure... lets see your tax records... address, phone number... hell... how about we add a little bar under the avatar pics in this forums with current job, salary, political affiliation, number of traffic citations, criminal history...

Play Stratego with all your pieces turned but not your opponents and see how far you get Cosmo.

Like any employee of mine, I have a right to know everything they do in the capacity of my employee. There should be no secret plots in action to spy on world leaders and secretly gather their DNA and iris scans in violation of treaties.. There are. Now we know our State Depaartment is being run by criminals. I think that's much better than not knowing, especially next time we vote.

As for Stratego, that's a child's game of war and I expect far more adult behavior from my government.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Leaks controlled by State Department, edited by press in all countries including ours to serve their own ends.

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5939

Look for US to launch a massive war against Iran in the coming year.

We don't need to launch it. We just have to let the others we've been holding back go forward with it.

 

[Entity]

There's not going to be a war.

I've been relatively neutral to this Assange character. I figure from his end he thinks he's doing the world a service, and I have even shunned that the US may be involved in smearing him with these rape allegations. However, releasing details about identified critical infrastructure doesn't show me any service he is providing to anyone except someone who wants to harm the United States. Now I have to second-guess his intentions. Is it revealing American secrets that could be considered criminal? Or is it taking down the United States in general?

 

[MARIS61]

Clearly a frame by a schemer looking for a big payoff, and nothing that would be considered illegal in the US or most civilized countries of the world.

One of the women involved in the sexual abuse allegations told Aftonbladet that she had voluntary relations with him and had never wanted him to be charged with rape, the Guardian said.

"He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him," she said — anonymously — according to the paper.

Sexual encounters with two Swedish women last August are at the center of the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. His lawyer calls it a "political stunt" and supporters suspect a government conspiracy to entrap Assange. The two women allege it has nothing to do with leaked files and everything to do with how he treats women.

Assange's lawyers have claimed the accusations stem from a "dispute over consensual but unprotected sex" and say the women only made the claims after finding out about each other's relationships with Assange.

Assange, for his part, said shortly after the allegations became public that he was shocked. "I have been accused of various things in recent years, but nothing so serious as this," he told a Swedish newspaper.

Below is what's known so far about those encounters, based on reporting by London's Daily Mail and the allegations made in a London court on Tuesday by Gemma Lindfield, an attorney acting for Swedish authorities.

Aug. 11: Assange arrives in Stockholm, where he is to be the key speaker at a seminar organized by a group called the Brotherhood Movement.

London's Daily Mail reports his point of contact is a radical feminist who once held a university post of "campus sexual equity officer." The two had never met but earlier agreed that Assange would stay at her apartment, the Mail stated. She planned to be out of town until the day of the seminar.

Aug. 14: The woman, identified by Swedish officials only as Miss A, returns to Stockholm, 24 hours earlier than planned. The two go out for dinner, return to the apartment and have sex during which a condom breaks. She would later tell police that Assange used his body weight to hold her down during sex and that she was a victim of "unlawful coercion."

Aug. 15: Assange delivers his seminar speech and meets another woman who tags along for lunch with friends, the Mail reported, adding that the two then go to a movie where the woman suggests they were "intimate."

That evening, Miss A hosts a party for Assange at her home, afterward reportedly tweeting this to friends: "Sitting outside ... nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!"

Aug. 16: The second woman, identified only as Miss W by Swedish officials, calls Assange and they meet in Stockholm. They go by train to her hometown and to her apartment, where they have sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom.

Aug. 17: Miss W later tells police that Assange that morning had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep.

Aug. 18: Assange is alleged on this day to have "deliberately molested" Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity."

Timeline: WikiLeaks timeline (on this page)
Soon after, Miss W contacts Miss A, knowing her from the seminar, and confides that she had unprotected sex with Assange, the Mail reported. Miss A says that she, too, had slept with him and reportedly later phones an acquaintance of Assange to relay to him that she wants him out of her apartment.

Aug. 20: Assange leaves the apartment. The two women go to Stockholm police to seek advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Miss W against Assange, the Mail reported. According to one source, Miss W wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Miss A said she was there merely to support Miss W, but she also gives police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange, the Mail reported.

The female interviewing officer concludes that Miss W had been raped and Miss A subject to sexual molestation. A duty prosecuting attorney agrees Assange should be sought on suspicion of rape.

Aug. 21: The chief prosecutor dismisses the rape charge and arrest warrant, saying what occurred were no more than minor offenses.

In the following days, the claimants appeal, and a special prosecutor reopens the case, eventually reissuing the arrest warrant.

By now the press had gotten hold of the story. Miss A spoke to a Swedish newspaper, saying: "In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40551118/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

 

[MARIS61]

There's not going to be a war.

There's always going to be a war. That's a given.

The US government has waged war (either openly or covertly) continually and without a break since long before any of us were born. At no time in the last century have we been at peace, or even interested in promoting it.

 

[Entity]

There's always going to be a war. That's a given.

The US government has waged war (either openly or covertly) continually and without a break since long before any of us were born. At no time in the last century have we been at peace, or even interested in promoting it.

Well, sure, I'll give you that. And perhaps we are at war with Iran covertly. But I don't think we're going to roll in there openly, at least for the rest of Obama's tenure. Who knows what the next guy/gal might do.