Now you are not talking about putting those people already committed the war crimes into jail and stopping those still on going crimes. You are not angry about the crimes themselves. You are not angry about the army and the governments used secrecy to cover the crimes. You are not angry about the government wasting tax money in conducting criminal wars. However, you are crying about that Manning did not consider other soldier’s lives (we even don’t know if this accusation is valid or not). How absurd it is. Apparently, you only care about the lives of murderers and care nothing about the people killed by the murderers. Another possibility is that you think only western soldier’s lives are lives, not for those civilians in Mid-East.

Since when it is wrong to expose crimes and those who commit them under the protection of secrecy to the public. Even those criminal’s lives might be endangered sometimes, then so what? If you don’t perform the criminal act, then there will be no danger at all. Shouldn’t we blame the crime itself, not the people who expose it?

Not to mention now we only see more crimes are exposed but no one’s life is in danger.

As for his motivation. All you mentioned can, but not necessary, be parts of the motivation. However, they are not in contradiction to the motivation to expose crimes.

The information revealed by Wikileak shows the government is wasting taxpayer’s money doing all kinds of disgusting and immoral stuffs under the protection of secrecy, and those being exposed are just a tiny part of an iceberg. This also indicates the whole system now need to be overhauled to make the government being more transparent to people. The slogan “Too much for people” is nothing but bxll shxt.

Finally, I want to say: thank you! Wikileak and Bradley Manning.

Regardless of whether Mr. Patterson finds the prosecution’s proferred evidence “credible,” it has not been proven. (Also as a courtroom observer, I have not found it so credible.) Mr. Patterson has made similar assertions over the course of these proceedings, and they are misleading. There should be no rush to “admit” anything on Bradley’s behalf, which is actually a disservice to him. Yes, the prosecution case often looks compelling when it is unchallenged, and it has not been challenged yet. Yes, his lawyer proposed a plea, but this is not the same as admitting he did something. It only indicates that, in the prosecution’s court, they have a strong chance to convict him. His lawyer is creatively trying to limit the damage.