Wait, stop right there. You're going to have to explain why Manning's leaking documents is a defense of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Are you saying gays are more likely to leak classified information than straights? 'Cause I'd love to see some numbers (or anecdotes! or anything!) to back that up, 'cause it sounds like some crazy homophobic bullshit.

OK, Ben, I'll explain. Note should be taken that this is not my opinion, but simply what was explained to me by our battalion S-2 (Intelligence) officer when I was granted my Top Secret clearance. In a good deal of this country, and a considerable portion of this world, homosexuality is neither condoned or accepted. (Despite the desire of progressives to the contrary.) Those charged with maintainence of security consider being gay a security risk in that they are subject to being compromised by blackmail derived from sexual liasions. Same sex sexual contact is still a violation of the UCMJ, and a death penalty offense in less enlightened places in this world. Gays are not exclusive to this form of blackmail; Google "Sgt. Lonetree, U.S. Embassy, Moscow." However, given the lack of acceptance of homosexuality, they are at a much greater risk by being compromised by the threat of outing. Further, it was explained that this lack of acceptance also causes greater incidence of psychological problems, emotional instability, and subtance abuse in the homosexual community.All place individual at greater risk of being compromised, and are cause for denial or revocation of an individual's security clearance.  I asked the S-2 if he thought it would ever change, he replied "only when homosexuality becomes generally accepted in this country." While DADT is not perfect, it allows homosexuals the privledge of serving their country. You simply have to agree to abide by certain criteria while in the military. This is nothing new. Anyone that serves agrees to surrender a large portion of their civil rights by subjecting themselves to the military justice system and the UCMJ. In my own experience, there were things in my personal life that I refrained from while in the service. The reasons for this were twofold: 1. The conduct would in violation of the UCMJ, 2. I had agreed to live by the policies and regulations as defined by command authority. Simply stated, when you take the oath you agree to live by *their* standards, not your own. Military discipline is non-negotiable, people's lives depend on it. One may argue that DADT is a half measure, and that we should move agressively to intergrate homosexuals to the military. My answer is that (a) they are already there, (b) time of war is not the time for social engineering. I served with a number of people I suspected of being gay; however, Never spoke of it because I did not want to put them in the position of having to choose between confiding in me or risking their status. I honestly believe that attitudes will change, and eventually everyone will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. Until then, DADT is the best possible compromise. I do not know the motivation or reasoning that lead Pvt. Manning to betray his country. I do know that it is quite likely that his actions will cost the lives of American military and diplomatic personnel stationed overseas. If that is so, in accordance with the penalities dictated by the UCMJ (a code Manning himself swore to live by), his life should be forfeit. As for your statement Ben, anyone that has served on active duty can tell you that you better have a pretty high tolerance for "bullshit" if you want to serve.

Semper Fi