For example, in paragraph 6, you can see the intention to say Manning hurt this country ( may have chilled diplomats’ ability to do their work- which is a statement carry clear information) but avoid any clear illustration on the war crimes it revealed. Instead, the NYT article used some “name” to call those war crimes.

1. Looked at how he describe the helicopter gunner.
2. Field reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What does those logs mean?
3. Confidential assessments of the detainees locked up at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It seems like the detainee’s privacy were edangered hah? But really? Don’t tell me the author has no idea that most of the detainees in Guantánamo Bay are innocent and tortured and the government knew it well. In fect, there was an detainee died in Guantánamo Bay few days ago, but I guess that meant nothing to NYT.

These leaks concerning the war crimes committed by US military and government were described just by some vague words which is hard to tell the actual content.

If you are a people have no idea of the meaning of the information that Manning leaked in the first place, and this is the first article you read, you will be misconducted. Plus the following piece-wised report in the court. This article can be seen as mostly a flier of the government.

There was a report on CNN too few months ago, which only referred to the opinions of other lawyer and there was no opinion from Manning’s lawyer. I cannot believed they even didn’t bother to check the website of David Coombs for some information. Is googling a such difficult skill?

Sometimes I hope that Manning’s case can be known by more people, but these craps produced by mainstream media always make me worried about the topics they covered or are going to address.