General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes [View all]... is parroted around that what Manning did was ok because he exposed "War Crimes."
Ignoring the fact he released 100,000s of other documents...
Ignoring the fact that there are legitimate chains of reporting he chose not to use...
Ignoring the fact that it is far more likely that he was striking out at the organization he had failed at and felt had treated him unfairly...
Ignoring the fact that if he really gave a shit about peace or people he wouldn't have done what he did because it made diplomacy more difficult and thus the use of arms more likely...
Ignoring the fact that he knew that the information was to be distributed to the entire world to the benefit of a private organization in direct violation of the oath and promises he voluntarily made...
and of course ignoring the fact that in all of these threads about dipshit Bradley Manning, no one seems to be able to say what those war crimes were other than to talk in vague generalities and "If I were king of the world it would be a crime" whiny bullshit.