[quote name='Ravyne' timestamp='1298657793' post='4779029']
Can you imagine life in prison or being put to death for a "crime" which has no identifiable victim, and the accusation of actual harm caused is rather dubious. If he had been in the corporate world acting against his employer who was doing shady shit behind the scenes he would be hailed as a hero across the board, and it would be ridiculous to think that his employer could trial him to determine his guilt and punishment.
The "no identifiable victim" is debatable. There have been many attacks that were directly attributed to the leaked documents, including attacks that mirrored the (alleged) incidents that were done in retribution.
...
But I believe that people did die as a result of the actions as there was a series of retribution attacks. It could have been done differently. There are procedures to elevate concerns and he did not follow them. If he had gone through the procedures and protocols then I would feel differently about it. But as described, it seems he plainly broke some very serious laws and regulations on a massive scale rather than going through established channels, and that needs to be dealt with.
[/quote]
But then we get into the debate of whether culpability for revealing the names falls at the feet of Pfc. Manning, and/or on the various members of WikiLeaks for failing to redact the specific details that could potentially have lead to targeted attacks. But before we get even there, we have to identify specific persons who were as yet unknown to their attackers, who were specifically attacked and killed, and we have to prove not only attribution to WikiLeaks, but confirm that to be the case -- its not enough to say so-and-so was killed after the leak, and may have been (or even was) mentioned plainly in the documents, or even that their attackers claim the leak as why they were targeted.
If I were fighting against the coalition and wanted to divide them as much as possible, I might attribute any killing or attack to the leak, just to stir up tensions. I might also take the opportunity to target some folks who have been suspected of helping coalition forces, but which hasn't been proven, because now I can wave some computer print outs around that no one in the village can read and tell everyone they say that so-and-so is a traitor.
There may be actual, verifiable incidents, and they should be investigated and taken into account. However, remember that this is a warzone where simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you killed. Whenever you choose sides you are at risk of being harmed. We must do everything we can to protect those allies, including protecting their identities -- however, how many of these same type of allies might have been killed due to mistakes on the ground, or perhaps too little discretion on the part of coalition troops, and there would be no court martial. Not to take away from any deaths, especially avoidable ones, but this stuff does happen.
Let us also bear in mind that, at essence, what he did was release factual information that he believed was doing more harm hidden than in the light. We're not talking about someone who released the information in order to embarrass or provoke, nor are we talking about someone who fabricated information. Generally, when something you do leads to negative consequences, such as injury or death, it's called negligence, and even then only if it can be proven that you had a reasonable notion that your actions would likely lead to those consequences (which, in this case, is probably true.)
If I'm not mistaken, the infamous Apache helicopter video is attributed to Pfc. Manning's early leaks, and revealed some truly heinous actions by those pilots -- I might be inclined to say murder, even. I think you have to weigh the total outcome of these leaks when judging his actions. Does exposing one murder justify causing another? Probably not. Does exposing one murder justify *possibly* causing another? Maybe. Does exposing a lot of bad stuff justify *possibly* causing more, but probably significantly less, bad stuff? I'd be inclined to say "probably".
Now, its been awhile since I've read anything on it, but from what I recall he had attempted to bring these things up with his superiors, or it may have been the case that it was readily apparent that they were of a mind to keep these incidents hidden. Put in that position, do you risk bringing it up ever more fervently, thereby possibly removing yourself from a position in which you believe yourself to be able to do some good with it?
