Reply #149: Okay

[Still a Democrat]

"He did not commit a crime because he has a legal obligation to expose illegalities, and many of the cables do just that and confirm that the U.S is routinely engaged in war crimes, seizures of people and other operations abroad that violate international law."

Some of the cables indicating crime or wrongdoing does not excuse all of them. We agree he can be defended as a whistleblower, but only for those that were truly whistleblowing.

"As for reporting this up the line, this would have been ridiculous, since it was the people up the line who were parties to these crimes."

His direct report was involved in the crimes? If he had reported it and nothing was done, it would strengthen the arguement he was a whistleblower when he went elsewhere.

"And I think he would have been criticized by the anti-transparency brigade had he been selective in what cables he released ("he's hiding the true story") and that Wikileaks was the perfect organization to send the document to, since they have a reputation of being quite responsible in what and how they release documents."

Sorry, but if he released cables he had no reason to just to please the "anti-transparency brigade" he ought to be convicted of extreme stupidity.

Did he have some good intentions? Probably. But I think he was immature, got carried away, and recklessly crossed lines you can't.