The closing arguments for repealing DADT are unassailable. The American public supports repeal; the military top brass has come out in favour of congressional changes; and rank-and-file servicemen and servicewomen have been polled and the overwhelming majority (70%) of them are comfortable serving alongside openly gay men and lesbians. The substantive points have already been canvassed in umpteen studies, with the recent Pentagon report geared towards implementing repeal in a manner that retains unit cohesion. The Obama administration, with maddening diligence, has flattered every bit of the military's penchant for process.

Aside from the legislative logjam in Congress, the issue itself seemed finally to have been put beyond contention this week – until the WikiLeaks dump.

It turns out that Bradley Manning, the US army intelligence analyst widely reported as the likely source for the leak and currently in military custody awaiting court martial, is gay. He is charged with "transferring classified data" and "delivering national defence information to an unauthorised source". Arrested and held since May, Manning faces a prison term of up to 52 years, if convicted.



Opponents of DADT repeal are wasting no time to connect what they see as the dots. At a moment of hyper-patriotism, with one Republican presidential hopeful calling for the execution of those who exposed classified material, a new argument has arisen: homosexual men and women are potentially subversive and open to nefarious influences. Above all, they are unpatriotic. No way can DADT be repealed.



In a profile last summer, the New York Times sought to paint a picture of Manning's psychological makeup. DADT was part of the background of this story. A small-town boy from Bible-belt Oklahoma, Manning fretted about fitting into the straitened ways of the military. Friends worried about his state of mind caused by a lack of adjustment and seeming disaffection. He is said to have eventually found intelligence work liberating, making friends, falling in love and developing a political voice. So far, so good.



Except that, according to the narrative, Manning at some point fell in with a bunch of hackers and lefties who were ideologically supportive of a radical freedom of information agenda. His brooding moroseness – which has been imputed to his homosexual orientation – led him to display erratic behaviour. Carelessly, he bragged to a blogger: "Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack." He told people that he "wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of [his] life" as long as his pictures were "plastered all over the world press". At the same time, he fretted about being "emotionally fractured", a "wreck" and "self-medicating like crazy".



For what he is alleged to have done, Manning will face a military court where the law will take its course. Based on his published statements, people are entitled to weave an image of his persona as they see fit. But the line of conservative attack – to say that Manning's supposed dysfunctional behaviour is evidence for the argument to bar gays from serving openly in the military – is preposterous.



First, there is no proof that whatever disaffection Manning harboured was connected in any way to his sexuality. Divining how people become radicalised is not a scientific endeavour. If Manning did engage in subversive activities, his motivation for doing so does not necessarily have anything to do with his sexuality, simply because he is gay.

But even if – hypothetically – Manning did become disaffected with the military establishment because of his impatience with the hypocrisy of DADT (he did, apparently, participate in a gay pride march, calling for equality on "the battlefield"), the conclusion should surely be not that DADT has merit after all, but that repeal of the flawed policy would remove it, once and for all, as a source of grievance.

Ultimately, though, the issues concerning DADT repeal are not complicated – and have nothing to do with Bradley Manning. Attempts to drag the WikiLeaks imbroglio into this debate are a red herring. At its core, the arguments for repeal of DADT are about fundamental human rights – and whether the US government is prepared to continue state-supported homophobia and discrimination. Those who resist reform are on the wrong side of history.