But of course I'm dreaming. This is tea party time, and the circus is in town.
The queers are coming! The queers are coming!
If the right wing blogosphere is any indication, the right seems poised to turn the Manning case into an argument for increased repression against homosexuals in the military.
There's this from the Family Research Council blog:
"Manning's betrayal painfully confirms what groups like FRC have argued all along: the instability of the homosexual lifestyle is a detriment to military readiness."
Then Cliff Kincaid of the right-wing Accuracy in Media writes this on a blog called "Right Side: The Right News For America."
"Was Manning given a pass because his 'lifestyle' was acceptable under the Obama administration?" He decries "the obvious mishandling of this homosexual ticking time bomb." Echoing Joseph McCarthy, he warns of "a secret homosexual network in the military."
You can see it forming: Queers are undermining America, and Bradley Manning is the vanguard!
What is said to motivate the hacker community is a belief that information is democratically owned by all. There are certainly gray areas here, and reasonable people can argue about them. But what's important is this idea about the democratic ownership of information is the spirit that also motivates WikiLeaks and its Australian founder and director, Julian Assange.
Homosexuality in this matter is, as it always has been, a distraction, as it was in the old days when homosexuals could not be in sensitive government positions because they were said to be susceptible to blackmail. Yet, if homosexuals are not made to hide and are open about their sexuality -- as in antiquity and in Native American societies that threat totally evaporates.
The fact is, a democratic interest in the ownership of information is antithetical to the United States military. Most secrets are rooted in some form of embarrassment or shame, which means to sustain an absurd war the public must be kept in the dark. That was true in Daniel Ellsberg's day; it's true today.
Is Bradley Manning an American Hero?
I've gotten flak from several veteran friends for declaring Manning to be an "American hero." I should be more cautious; wait and see what the kid's motives really are.
Manning is not a hero in the propaganda macho-warrior mode. But is that limitation realistic? And, for that matter, can a 22-year-old, emotionally-troubled homosexual even be seen by the average American who fears homosexuality as something contagious?
The only question that matters is, does the publication by WikiLeaks of the material Manning is purported to have leaked amount to a good thing or a bad thing for Americans? Is it good or bad for peace in the world? In both cases, I say the former.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is "appalled" about the possibility some Afghan informer's name will be discovered in the leaked material by the Taliban and he will be killed. So far, nothing like this has happened, since we know if it did we would not hear the end of it. WikiLeaks held back 15,000 reports to avoid this eventuality. But, still, it could happen, and if it does, is it tantamount to "collateral damage" for WikiLeaks?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
