Reply #137: You miss the point of my post entirely.

[go west young man]

In my mind your view is nationalistic and exactly the problem with these kinds of debates.
I can only assume then that you would agree with the "state" in all the scenarios I provided.
The question is a humanistic moral question in regards to releasing information for the greater
good of mankind. Defense of the state in these scenarios is redundant according to history.
There are many examples of soldiers and whistle blowers leaking information that leads to a
better state. As I said the US may find him guilty but in the future he will be considered a
brave soldier.

As far as the UCMJ goes most civilians would be surprised to learn that he'll probably be
represented by a military lawyer who's own promotion is contingent upon the decision of the
prosecuting command. In other words his lawyer will be working for the prosecution indirectly.
There is no real military justice. He'll be found guilty before any evidence is given. After all the
military is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship. Americans miss that point about their own military.
Nationalism can cause blindness. I'll just encourage you to get from behind your flag and think
about things from a more human global perspective. By doing so you'd be doing America a much
greater service.