Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
Yes, let us let the fox define all the terms with regards to the hen house. What could go wrong?
>Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
Everyone involved in covering up our mistakes that served to further recruitment efforts of our enemies. Instead of admitting the mistakes and explaining how we would prevent such mistakes in the future. Instead, they covered it up so that Americans wouldn't see it (thus protecting themselves from blow back from us) at the cost of giving the enemy a far better recruitment tool.
Fox? He used the Constitution to definite the terms. Are you arguing against the Constitutional definition of what a traitor is? What definition would you want him tried on in court if not the Constitutional one?
So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.
> So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.
No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not.
Now, was the specific act you referred to a war crime, or a case of mistaken identification, or legitimate action against an armed group or individual within a group, or something else? Beats me. It's not my job to decide. Nor was it Manning's job to decide, nor to leak that information because he didn't like the decision of those whose job it was to decide.
Those whose jobs it is 'to decide' have shown themselves untrustworthy and unwilling to uphold justice.
So fuck 'em, time for others to take on the responsibility.
Manning, Snowden and whoever else in future has access to information that would serve public interest and decides to risk their lives and their freedom to make it known.
The documents regarding that incident were pulled from an Inspector General's folder regarding an open investigation. That hadn't shown themselves to be anything. They were actively looking in to the incident. If anything Manning tainted the investigation and may have even prevented justice from being served.
There is a difference between releasing data that is strictly related to the public interest and taking massive amounts of data, including information about very sensitive operations and diplomatic discussions and releasing them without regards to the damage they may cause. It's reckless.
>No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not.
It is directly aiding the enemy by giving them a great recruitment tool. A soldier would be hard pressed to find a better recruitment tool to give the enemy.
He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.