Bradley Manning, Looking Ghostly After Three Years of Confinement: PHOTO


Via Reuters executive editor Jim Roberts, who tweets: "Is Bradley #Manning getting any sunlight?"

Manning's former supervisor is set to be called to the witness stand today:

Jihrleah Showman has already appeared before the court at Fort Meade, Maryland, having attended the first pre-trial hearing that was held in December 2011. On that occasion, she related how Manning had punched her during a violent outburst that led to him being demoted to the rank of private.

Showman also recounted other erratic behaviour from Manning, including an incident in which she feared that he had reached for a gun, and went as far as to say that in her opinion he should never have been allowed to deploy to Iraq because he was a "threat to himself and to others".

Showman will be called by government lawyers as they seek to drive home their case: that Manning was fully aware that what he was doing, in carrying out the largest leak of state secrets in US history, could put the nation in harm's way and benefit foreign adversaries.


  1. I wont grow up says

    This man is a confessed treasonous dog and should be treated as such. Just because he may be gay, the “community” treats him like a hero. If he didn’t look like he does, but instead looked like Gary Busey on a bad day he’d be thrown to the wolves. I’m sure my gay brothers and sisters here on Towelroad will now crucify me for expressing my opinion, but as a retired USMC Vietnam veteran I cannot stand silent.

  2. Alex Parrish says

    I don’t support Manning because he is gay — I couldn’t care less about that. I support Manning because I support what he did, exposing the dark underbelly of our supposedly ‘transparent ‘government. Many people will disagree. Fine — but don’t belittle the support of Manning by claiming it is just some sexual charade. There are real political issues here and only a moron would focus on sexuality.

  3. Isaac says

    I wish retired military guys were as angry about being lied into a war as they are about Bradley Manning. What about the chopper pilot who killed a reporter? We wouldn’t have known about that if not for Manning. The govt thinks it has the right to keep this info from us. It lies to us about casualties and atrocities it commits. This country is run by the people and the people have a right to know what it does in our name. One brave man comes forward and tells us the truth and we torture and incarcerate him. Pentagon has said that no deaths are related to wiki leaks so why is he in jail still? He also leaked “classified info” that over a million people had access to. How is that classified or secret? Our military does not deserve the respect it craves. What war have we won lately? What do we have to show for all our billions wasted? I will say they sure do know how to rape and torture.

  4. EchtKultig says

    I’m not sure the military is helping its case…but of course…they know the judge better than we do. Seems that someone who was threatening a supervisor in that way should just be removed from their job. That’s what corporate American would have done.

  5. EchtKultig says

    I don’t think of him as a “treasonous dog” but I recognize the reality that most in the military do think that of him. Guess what folks…the military is not a “choose your own ethical adventure” kind of place. I don’t think we should act like we want him thrown to the dogs, but neither do I think the gay community benefits by acting like he’s some kind of hero, when he’s not. A “noble whistlebower” could have at least tried to go about this without getting caught, and without seeming like he wanted to “aid the enemy” as they call it. He could have sent the files to the US media or to an anti-war congressperson. He seems like an insecure person who was manipulated by Adrian Lamo and the hackers community. (if you’re really looking for a homophobic Judas in this case, look there; not at the military itself)

    it’s such an interesting case concerning the agency of gay people in the military. Whether you’re male or female, femme or butch acting, you’re going to be expected to play by the rules. If you don’t like those rules, you’re free not to join. He isn’t being singled out because of who he is; though I’d hasten to point out the millions of ring wing commenters or bloggers calling him a “f-g traitor” are not some Army PR operation, they are the views of real middle ‘murkans. The military would punish a former Naval Academy quarterback who did the same thing in _exactly the same way_. And they can’t appear to be lenient with Manning (ironic name, even) just because he had “issues”.

  6. EchtKultig says

    Jeez, right wing. I’m having trouble waking up today!
    Perhaps I feel some personal connection to this case because I have gay friends who, and I’ll just leave it at this, work in the US security establishment. I’m not angry at Manning himself, but it concerns me that he could be used as an example by the right to say “oh look, you can never trust them.” Like I said, though the Iraq War might have been unjust, the military viewpoint is that the way you deal with that injustice is by leaving the military, or becoming an antiwar activist. We aren’t ruled by a junta. You are free to protest against the military…from outside of it. But when you get a clearance you take an oath to honor it, and you sign a statement saying you know the consequences if you don’t.

  7. gwynethcornrow says

    “…if you’re thinking of doing something similar to what he did, DON’T.”
    This is exactly what Manning’s trial is meant to accomplish. If you are thinking of speaking truth to power, of blowing the whistle on wrong-doers in the government, of taking an ethical position that may run contrary to the status quo, then don’t.
    There are laws to protect whistleblowers. Manning’s trial threatens to overturn those Whistleblower protection laws.
    This is an extremely important trial and I hope Towleroad will continue to cover it.

  8. Jon says

    I cannot believe the amount of sympathetic press time that this traitor (in the literal use of the word) is getting in the gay media. Folks, he’s a TRAITOR! It doesn’t matter what color of the rainbow he is, he put fellow soldiers in harm’s way by handing over vast amounts of classified information to our nation’s enemies. He is a traitor, and should be taken out and executed for his treason.

    The fact that so many in the gay press are even covering this story, simply because he’s gay, just reinforces the idea that gay people are self-absorbed hedonists who care only for themselves and “the cause”. That the cause of “being gay” trumps every other concern, including that of our national security.

    And we as a gay community wonder why there are still so many who don’t trust us? It’s because of stuff like this, where too many power-brokers in our community are sympathetic to obvious traitors.

  9. Isaac says

    @Jon “And we as a gay community wonder why there are still so many who don’t trust us?” WTF? I am gay and I never wonder why people don’t trust us. If somebody doesn’t trust me because I am gay that person can go to hell. Also, the Pentagon cannot connect one loss of life with the wiki leaks/Manning debacle. And don’t you think the drone strikes that kill innocent people, including children, do more to put our troops in danger than leaking material that over a million people had access to?

  10. David says

    “And we as a gay community wonder why there are still so many who don’t trust us?”

    Manning is trans, not gay. Those are 2 very different things.

  11. Taffy says

    Lol! She looks great! Prison life is working out well for the deceitful, dishonorable creep. Can’t wait for her to start her lengthy sentence of hard labor confinement.

    You will werq it girl!!

  12. EchtKultig says

    “Also, the Pentagon cannot connect one loss of life with the wiki leaks/Manning debacle.”

    You fail to understand that this is not the way the military thinks. He broke the rules – end of discussion. That’s all they care about.

  13. Ben says


    99.9% of what he leaked had nothing to do with any alleged wrongdoing of any kind. He leaked 250,000 diplomatic cables from around the world, and didn’t even read what he was leaking.

    The whistleblower laws don’t apply to the military and don’t legalize the criminal disclosure of confidential information, and Manning is not using the whistleblower laws in his defense. You just don’t know what you are talking about, do you?

  14. redball says

    i applaud him for exposing the war crimes of our military industrial complex.

    i hope he is getting sunlight. vit d deficiency you dont wanna eff with (although many of us *are* vit d insufficient or outright deficient)

  15. gwynethcornrow says

    Regarding military whistleblower protection laws, I believe you are the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about. See Title 10, U.S.C Section 1034.

    You also seem clueless regarding what was leaked.

    It would be great to read Ari Ezra Waldman’s opinion on this case.

  16. MateoM says

    Rick….I mean David Hearne (it’s the same person, so id doesn’t really matter which alias I’m addressing): we already know you are ignorant, homophobic, misogynistic, and generally THE WORST, but you’ve outdone yourself. The only fwad who should kill himself is you. We’d be so happy if you did. It’s not like anyone would miss you.

  17. says

    I’m sorry, but there is no other word for this man than “traitor.” During war time, he released classified information that he was responsible for. There is NO excuse whatsoever for his actions. I am gay, I am a vet, and I find this man an embarrassment to everything we’ve been striving for. Until Manning, almost all the traitors have been straight guys, but Manning takes the title for the biggest due to the volume of information put out. Does anyone remember the Marine Guard in our Moscow embassy who took his Russian girlfriend on a nighttime tour of the embassy, even into classified areas? Turns out she was a KGB agent and he was destroyed. While I am NOT a supporter of cruel and unusual punishment, like making him appear at roll call nude, etc., he does deserve whatever sentence he gets. He ought to be thankful they are not seeking the death sentence.

  18. Ben says


    Thanks for the citation to the federal statute. It proves my point that the statute does not apply to this case and does not protect an unlawful leak of the sort that Manning has admitted to:

    “(1) No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.

    (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a communication that is unlawful.”

    If Manning had contacted a member of Congress the IG’s office or other members of the armed forces, this law might apply. He didn’t. And it doesn’t. That is why he isn’t even attempting to raise it as a defense in his trial.

  19. gomez says

    guess im one of the few that’s undecided about this, not knowing the details very well

    but is it possible to vociferously disagree with someone, even thinking they’re a terrible person, without telling them to kill themselves or fellate a shotgun or whatever?

    encouraging suicide, whether in kids or adults, is nasty business and obliterates your message

  20. Edward says

    Gomez: I’m with you as one of the few. It’s weird how he seems to be getting propped up as an idealized hero for some and the ultimate villain for others.

    Jon (and the other guys who are supposedly veterans): I didn’t even know he was gay (or trans, or whatever else he might be). When I’ve heard gay friends discuss the case their opinion has been the result of their political persuasion, not allegiance to Manning as a “community” member.

  21. gwynethcornrow says

    @ Ben:
    You might want to do a bit more research on the case since each of your comments reveal how little you actually know about it. Manning did, in fact, try to go to his superiors and other officers outside his particular unit. However, this wasn’t my intention in citing Title 10, U.S.C Section 1034. My intention was to show that you are wrong in your assumption that whistleblower laws do not apply to the military.

  22. from Mexico says

    When it comes to a dictatorial and authoritarian personality, we really haven’t seen anything quite like Obama in the White House for almost a century. Woodrow Wilson was the last president who, like Obama, believed he could use the United States Constituion as toilet paper to wipe his ass with.

    Obama, just like the Houston DA who drug out Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law that hadn’t been used for decades in order to prosecute John Lawrence and Tyron Garner in 1998 for “engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex”, dug out laws promulgated by Wilson a century earlier so he could prosecute Bradley Manning. Wilson, in his zeal to sell a skeptical American public on WWI, used the laws to persecute any dissenting voices opposed to WWI. The laws laid dormant on the books for almost 100 years until Obama came along.

    For a short video of the history of how and why the laws Obama is using to persecute Manning came about, there’s this outstanding film by Scott Noble:

  23. from Mexico says

    To illustrate the extent to which Obama is willing to carry his war on visible government, the Christian Science Monitor has a new story up: “Bradley Manning’s Wikileaks trial shrouded in secrecy”

    And it is no wonder the military judge in Manning’s court martial trial, Army Col. Denise Lind, wants her rulings to remain shrouded behind a veil of secrecy. As Truthout reported:

    “In a telling sign of just how fair of a trial Manning will get, the military judge already ruled that almost all questions and evidence the defense can raise about Manning’s intentions for acting are irrelevant to the trial.”

    This ruling firmly places Lind in the Richard Nixon and Adolf Eichmann camp. For these faithful adherents of legalism, the law is all about mala prohibita, or wrongful only because it is illegal, and nothing about mens rea, or an “evil-meaning mind.” For them the law is all about the letter of the law, and nothing about the spirit of the law. It’s an unbelievably one-eyed view of criminal jurisprudence, and is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” (quotes from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Morissette v. United States)

  24. from Mexico says

    After Adrian Lamo’s testimony before the court martial yesterday, it becomes very clear why judge Lind ruled:

    1) Not to allow the court reporter into the courtroom who the press had hired to make a transcript of the trial, and

    2) That almost all questions and evidence the defense can raise about Manning’s intentions for acting are irrelevant to the trial.

    The Obama and army propagandists have spent the last three years in an elaborate, full court press to demonize Manning as a troubled, unstable, and vengeful young gay man who did what he did out of spite. If this were true, the government would have little problem demonstrating the mens rea — “evil-meaning mind” — requirement necessary for a criminal conviction. But it looks like all the government propaganda was just that: distortions and half-truths at best, and outright lies at worst.

    It’s amazing how, despite all the precautions Lind took to insure the truth didn’t become public, that somehow it is managing to slip out. For instance, Scott Galindez reported that yesterday Lamo testified that, in emails and chats, Manning had written to him:

    ~ that Manning did not believe in good guys and bad guys anymore, only a plethora of states acting in self interest.
    ~ that Manning thought maybe he was maybe too idealistic.
    ~ that, based on what Manning had seen, he couldn’t let the information stay inside.
    ~ that Manning felt connected to everybody, that we were all distant family, and he said he cared.
    ~ that Manning called himself a humanist and said he had custom dog tags where he had written humanist on the back.
    ~ that we are all human and we are killing ourselves and no one seems to care.
    ~ that Manning was bothered that nobody seemed to care, that apathy was far worse than active participation.
    ~ that Manning preferred the painful truth over blissful fantasy.

    Those are hardly the thoughts of some little air-headed disco queen that the Obama and army propagandists have spent the last three years creating.

    It also explains why Lind’s ruling negating the mens rea requirement was so elemental to convicting Bradley Manning. There is no way the army could demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the “evil-meaning mind” requirement.

  25. FakeOutrage says

    Mens rea doesn’t translate in “evil-meaning mind”. It simply means “mental state” as in, what was his state of mind or rather on a more basic level…did he have the necessay intent/willfulness in doing what he did. Evil is not a requirement. You are just wrong.

  26. gwyneth cornrow says

    @Fake Outrage: mens rea does not mean “mental state.” It means criminal intent or “a guilty mind.” So, actually, Mexico is a bit closer to the correct legal definition.

  27. FakeOutrage says

    No, it does not. It’s a “concept” rather than the narrow definition you want it to be. It goes to the “state of mind”. In some cases, criminal in others not. example: If I shoot a gun in the air…with no “criminal state of mind” in the bullet injuring someone..and that bullet falls out of the sky and hits someone…I am criminally liable because I had the specific intent to fire the gun….even if I didn’t intend for the consequences that resulted. You both are completely wrong.

  28. EchtKultig says

    from Mexico –
    could you please cite where it says in the UCMJ that conviction for wrongdoing requires the establishment of a certain state of mind in the suspect? Last I checked, it was not written by Richard Nixon OR Adolph Eichmann. It seems you object to the very nature of US military jurisprudence. Fine. Write your congresscritter to get the laws of the US military changed. If someone was well meaning, they simply shouldn’t ever be able to be court marshaled. See how far that gets in committee. For now, Manning signed a agreement saying that if he knowing OR unknowingly caused the release of classified information – classified rightly or wrongly – he could face punishment up to and including inprisonment.

    BTW how does a Supreme Court case about a scrap dealer apply to this? Guess what…I have a feeling even if Manning appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, all 9 justices would basically side with the government on the fundamental question of whether he broke the law. It’s a tough world out there.

  29. EchtKultig says

    I’m not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on military law, nevertheless I did a bit of tedious googling on “mens rea” and “strict liability”. I simply don’t see how that issue applies here at all, it seems a complete canard. He had far more “knowledge” of the “wrongness” of his actions than many criminals. Why did he re-write his Lady Gaga CDRW? Why didn’t he just bring in blank CD in a new case and, heck, why not say to his supervisor, “hey I’m just going to download some classified information to give to some friends of mine on the internet.” I mean, it’s completely rediculous. He knew he was “guilty” of breaking the law and the rules of the SCIF he was working in. (Nothing digital is supposed to come in or out except what is authorized and logged.) Fine, he had noble intentions of exposing US military wrongdoing. If I kill a man I know beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a serial murderer, I will still be prosecuted for this “act of goodness.”

  30. James says

    A TRAITOR? You people make me sick. What government did he betray? the government that betrays it’s own citizens daily?!?!! Who forced their people into a fake war for oil? Yea a traitor to traitors really doesn’t work its kinda like stealing from a thief. Dumbasses.

  31. Bill says

    Regardless of the legalities, “mens rea” is Latin.

    “mens” means “mind”
    “rea” is the the feminine word for “defendent”
    or accused, probably due to “mens” being feminine,
    and the ending for “rea” could be in the nominative, vocative, or ablative case (in the ablative, it would be pronounced using a long vowel). To have a chance of making sense gramatically, “rea” is most likely ablative. There’s a lot of overloading in terms how the ablative is used. In this case, it probably denotes a restriction to the defendant at the time the crime occurred.

  32. from Mexico says

    @ EchtKultig

    Every time you tickle that keyboard, you place yourself farther and farther into the Richard Nixon and Adolf Eichmann camp.

    And no one is arguing that Manning is going to get what most Americans would consider fairness or justice out of the military court. It’s already become clarion that he will not, because the judge has already made that clear when she disregarded long-standing precedent in American jurisprudence.

    Demonstrating criminal intent in order to convict someone of a criminal offense is part of our Western moral tradition. The United States Supreme Court made that point quite clear in Morissette v. United States when it ruled that negating the mens rea requirment, or demonstration of an “evil-meaning mind,” is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” (quotes from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Morissette v. United States)

    The very intention of my argument is to demonstrate that the Manning court martial is a show trial, and is an affront to what most Americans as well as legal precedent hold to be morally just and fair.

  33. Bill says

    @from Mexico: Sorry, but the term mens rea refers to the state of mind of a defendant (when an alleged crime was committed). The Supreme Court ruling you cited was about how that state of mind should be used in legal proceedings.

    The article you cited said that ‘In our
    system, crime is understood as a “compound concept,” requiring both an “evil-doing hand” and an “evil-meaning mind.”’. but that does not define “mens rea”. Rather, it specifies the mens rea that must exist for a crime to have been committed. Shortly after that quote, the article states, “It is mens rea, for example, that guarantees that the harsher penalties for intentional homicides will not be applied to accidental homicides.” Killing someone due to being careless with a gun is not treated the same as killing that person intentionally even though the person ended up being shot the same way – the “mens rea” are different in the two cases.

Leave A Reply