Michael Hamar

Far Right: Military Homosexual Scandal Tied to WikiLeaks Treason

Filed By Michael Hamar | August 02, 2010 11:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, DADT repeal, gays in the military, Rachel Maddow, U.S. Military

The caption of this post is the headline that appears on a far right manning2.jpgnews site and could well be the beginning of an additional ploy used by the anti-gay opponents of DADT repeal to smear LGBT servicemembers in general. The author even gets in a swipe at transgender individuals and Rachel Maddow.

True, a few legitimate news sites (e.g., MSNBC and The Telegraph) have referenced alleged Wikileaks principle suspect Bradley Manning's comments on a "break up with a boyfriend" in passing.

But not so with the always homophobic Cliff Kincaid, editor of grossly inappropriately named Accuracy in Media. Kincaid alleges that Manning's release of the documents - assuming he actually released them, something not yet proven - was because of his "hatred" for the U.S. military because of the DADT policy.

Not surprisingly, Kincaid manages to also leap frogs from these passing comments into a full blown rant against gays, the Obama administration and why DADT should not be repealed. His rant can be found at RightsideNews. Opponents of DADT need to be ready to counter this trash. Here is a sampling of Kincaid's trash talk:

In the scandal involving the theft and release of classified military information that could cost the lives of U.S. military personnel, the British Telegraph newspaper is reporting that the American soldier at the center of the scandal was "openly homosexual" and apparently held a grudge against the U.S. because of the military's anti-gay policy.

In another bizarre twist, reliable reports suggest that Private First Class Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army Intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified information to the WikiLeaks.org website, was not only a homosexual but was considering a sex change. Manning was arrested at the end of May and is being detained by U.S. authorities.

It is apparent that Manning, based on published reports, was a public homosexual activist for at least over a year. During this time he apparently came up with the idea of downloading and releasing the classified information to WikiLeaks as a way to get back at the United States military over its policy regarding homosexuality.

Telegraph writers Heidi Blake, John Bingham and Gordon Rayner write that Manning had "appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up" and became increasingly bitter with his treatment by the Army. It may be the case that Manning was anxious about the failure of Congress to pass the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" anti-gay military policy.

In a clear indication that the law was being ignored by the Obama Administration, the evidence demonstrates that Manning was continuing to serve after openly flaunting his homosexuality, including on Facebook.

Who in the Obama Administration-and the Department of Defense-was aware of his conduct and looked the other way? Was Manning given a pass because his "lifestyle" was considered to be in favor and acceptable under the Obama Administration?

Now, because of the obvious mishandling of this homosexual ticking time bomb, it appears that the United States, its soldiers, and relations with countries in the region will pay the price. Lives-and a war on terrorism in Afghanistan-could be lost.

The obvious intention is to inflict a humiliating defeat on the U.S. military in Afghanistan, forcing a withdrawal of U.S. forces before the country is stabilized and free of terrorist activity.

The result could be the major reemergence of Al Qaeda and its Taliban backers in a position to strike the United States in a 9/11-type terror attack. It will be interesting to see how the pro-homosexual U.S. media deal with the shocking revelations about Manning-and whether they investigate whether he was part of a secret homosexual network in the military that is currently working with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange...

A screen capture of Manning's Facebook profile shows the pages he liked were almost exclusively LGBT-related, including LGBT America, Gay Marriage, Equality Maryland, Dan Savage, Human Rights Campaign, etc." LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered. The Facebook image also shows that he enjoyed the MSNBC program hosted by Rachel Maddow, the lesbian activist...

The dramatic revelations about Manning's circle of friends and associates suggest that, rather than repeal the homosexual exclusion policy, as Obama is demanding, the prohibition on homosexuals should have been more strictly enforced and that it should be strengthened today. What's more, it is clear that Manning should have been expelled from the Armed Forces long before he allegedly did his damage to U.S. national security.

Unfortunately, I suspect that Kincaid is but the first of the far right elements that will try to use Manning - whether he's innocent or not of leaking the information - to fan the flames of homophobia. Gay rights bloggers and activists need to be ready to counter this slander.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

This is one of those moments that I hope Jon Stewart and his writera are paying attention.

How does it matter whether Manning identifies as gay, or a Norwegian-American, or a Baptist or a Libertarian? I don't get that part.

I agree that the logic - or lack thereof - is specious. The LGBT community simply needs to be ready to respond to it because I suspect our enemies will be bleating the story line wherever they can.

Marja Erwin | August 2, 2010 2:41 PM

Oh no! LGB and T people sometimes do heroic things!

Interestingly enough, one of the first folks to report on Manning was our own Austen Crowder who did a post about the possibility he was transgender. She reported it last month before the story got huge.

Took a few shiners for it in the comments, too. :) We'll see how this whole mess turns out.

I'm amazed at how little information we see in the news about Afghanistan. The economy is almost non existent, half the population is less than 18 years old, starvation is rampant and lately we find out there is tremendous mineral wealth including lithium, gold and many ores. To heck with military secrets, the whole situation is a mystery to me. Looks to me like an international quagmire.

I spoke with Manning a few times last year, way before the leaks. I never got the impression that he was trans, or even questioning his gender identity. He was open about being a gay man, and he seemed completely comfortable with that. Obviously things can change, but his chats with Lamo seem too vague to draw a conclusion like that. I've already written up a post addressing Kincaid and his ridiculous scaremongering.

Sounds like a great argument against DADT for rightwingers.

Oh, I'm sure they will exploit it to the fullest.

In the meantime, keep an open mind and wait for or look for the rest of the story. It's been suggested that LGBT identity may have been exploited to win over Manning's trust and encourage the leaks:


Sadly, having served in the US military...
They know that a large number of classified documents were leaked.
They know Manning leaked a video, even if they can not clearly link that video leak to the other documents leaked they'll clean house and hang all the leaked documents on him and charge him for it.
90,000+ leaked documents. Each one a chargeable offense. Each charge 10 to 20 years in federal prison.
The only other incident that I know of where this much classified information was released was the Walker family security breech. I don't think that was this extensive and it did not occur during a shooting war and it wasn't an 'open breech' to the public.
The lame arguments that very shallow people may put forth that GLBT person's can not be trusted because of one person's actions simply do not know either GLBT people or the security clearance process.

Factoid, IME a Transgender person is more trustworthy than cis-genders are. Part of the background process will disclose a person's previous name and gender so they know your past. So long as you disclose it, they trust you... and since they know the majority of Trans people live in stealth mode, they have a nice handle on the person. You tell thier secrets, they tell yours kind of thing.

I feel sorry for Manning. He's never gonna see the free light of day.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | August 2, 2010 9:21 PM

PFC Bradley Manning is a hero.

Wikileaks is another nail in the coffin of Obama's war.

Sorry to burst your bubble folks this little boy was no hero he commited a crime the crime treason.Why leaking information he may or may not of had acess to dont like this little fact that is fine but to me as one who worked at one time with the military and held a clearance.I hope he gets the full punishment for his crime.

Now to bash him for being Gay or TG when there is no proof either way that he is that I stand against that and take it for what it is nonsense.

He however has plenty to answer for and if he wanted out all he had to do was out himself and he would of been out the door faster than the ink could dry on his discharge papers.

someone with a conscience | August 3, 2010 1:40 AM

And yes, I believe your rhetoric is the same kind of rhetoric which is used to encourage violence. I believe that's what you intend with this rhetoric.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | August 3, 2010 3:40 AM

Treason is the crime committed by every member of Congress who votes for wars of aggression, every member of the Cabinet who implements wars or aggression and Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson (*), Nixon (*), Carter, Reagan, Bush1 (*), Clinton (*), Bush2 (*), and Obama.

We should join the antiwar movement in fighting to convene an International War Crimes Tribunal to investigate the situations in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

(*) In addition to treason for involving the US in illegal wars of aggression to steal oil and natural resources these rogue presidents are implicated in genocidal policies.

PFC Bradley Manning is a hero. We should work with the antiwar movement to free him and to support the GI antiwar movement.

People forget that the reason gays were explicitly forbidden from serving in the first place was they thought homosexuality was a threat to national security. The Mattachine Society were communists. Gays were frequently the target of the Un-American Activities Committee, McCarthyism and all that.

The right hands down their ideology from one generation to the next even though we forget.

someone with a conscience | August 3, 2010 1:30 AM

Someone has to expose war crimes.

Brad Manning stepped forward, at great personal risk, to do what the whole world needed done. That's the very definition of heroism. Calling that treason is petty and nationalistic.

If you wish harm to come to this individual for doing the right thing, then I believe you wish harm to come to me and to every other human being on this earth. I for one have already endured beatings to speak out, peacefully, against this war and all wars. I wish I had the courage and health to do more.

We happily executed those who refused to commit treason when it involved human rights, gnocide, war crimes etc.

So we have already set the precedent by our actions that not exposing or opposing a war crime is a greater crime than treason.

Otherwise we should have set the war criminals free who said "i was following orders" but we found them guilty and executed them.

It's sometimes Patriotic to disobey orders. It's sometimes Treason to obey them.

If one leaked file included evidence of a possible let alone a probable let alone an actual war crime then consider the ramifications of that for a time, that he could be coinsidered a war criminal himself if he did not disclose possible evidence of such a crime.

To the thread.... If you have never read it I recommend a book first published in 1960. Einstein on Peace. Albert Einstein; Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden, editors and translators. Preface by Bertrand Russell.