Reply #40: How far do you think he was going to get with that? [View All]

[Capitalocracy]

The president was ordering crimes to be committed. Now, I don't know what other actions Manning may have taken, I haven't heard any good source making a claim either way, but where do you turn when the corruption is so rampant that the crimes reach the presidency? There's only one authority to turn to, and that's the electorate. I agree that you have to try legal channels first, but I think there's a certain level of justification when those legal channels are obviously closed and, as is the case in Wikileaks, in which information is submitted anonymously, you can't go back after getting the information out. Assuming he didn't report crimes to his superiors, maybe it was because he was afraid that he would suffer consequences or be scrutinized and watched more closely, making it impossible to get the information out later.

Honestly, crimes were exposed by this whistleblower, and I think the difference between what he thought was the best way to expose them and what some people may think he could've done going through the "proper channels" is not enough to justify prosecution and imprisonment. The bottom line is he did the right thing, and we should be very careful about scrutinizing the specifics and starting a witch hunt. If we want a working democracy, it's a bad idea to put that kind of chilling effect on whistleblowing.