Where do you get this "he put countless lives in danger" nonsense? If this was true, then it should be relatively easy to point to the specific individuals who have been hurt as a result of this disclosure.

My heart does not bleed for you.

That's not an answer, N. Serling. It's an insult, and not a particularly coherent one at that. What is it with you internet blowhards.

You made a statement ("He put countless lives in danger.") I asked you to provide even a shred of evidence to convince me that this statement is true. You respond with a nonsensical personal attack.

The ball's in your court, friend. Here are your choices:

1) Insult me again. Please add in some symbols indicating cursing or perhaps some indistinct threat of violence or desire to see me hurt. That always warms my heart.

2) Provide me with an answer the question I asked.

3) Admit that you may have been mistaken.

I'm not your Friend What this guy did was clearly wrong and the behavior is unacceptable. How would you feel if you were over there and you or your element got rolled up because insurgents got a hold of some Intel.

" How would you feel if you were over there and you or your element got rolled up because insurgents got a hold of some Intel."

I'd be pissed off. But you don't seem to understand. It's not at all obvious that the "intel" that Manning is accused of leaking even had the potential to get anyone "rolled up," and even less obvious that it has resulted in this. What I'm asking you to do is provide some actual evidence suggesting that this is so. I'm not looking for completely uninformed speculation from someone who quite clearly doesn't have a very good understanding of the materials that were leaked, I'm looking for evidence. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm just asking you to make an attempt to prove it.

If it's as clear as you think it is, it should be really easy to do.

There are few things pretty evident here he violated a lot of security protocol and the scope of the damage may never be known. In my eyes this is treason. If you had ever been to a FOB or Airbase in Theatre you know the lifestyle is completely different from a Grunt's life on a COP or Camp. You have to take into account all the Third Country Nationals floating around there not all can be trusted and some are playing a double role for the Taliban or Al Qaeda not to mention the quality of life enhancements there no telling who he may have ran his mouth to. A lot of Insurgents are not stupid they watch coalition forces how they react, respond and there tactics, no telling who or what may have happen through subversion. I was over during those time's that this came to pass; some of the Insurgents had there @!$%# together. So In a nutshell I don't feel sorry him and hope they drop the hammer on him.

1) You've still not provided any evidence that a single leaked document even arguably placed any actual person's life in any actual danger. Your description of the dangers faced by our troops abroad is interesting, but you've said absolutely nothing that indicates that the documents that Manning leaked had any impact whatsoever on the level of safety. I'm not saying that this argument couldn't possibly be made or that it definitely isn't the case-- I'm simply asking you to back your claim ("He put countless lives in danger") up with some actual evidence. You seemed rather sure about it when you made it, so it shouldn't be so hard to demonstrate with specific facts and specific connections between the leak and the level of danger.

2) "In my eyes this is treason." That's nice. But treason has a very specific definition in American law (see article 3 sec. 3 of the Constitution or my post below where I quoted from it). This simply isn't covered by the legal definition of treason, although you can feel free to feel betrayed on some personal level.

It is countless we may never but there were alot of time when units have faced complex ambushes by insurgents and have fought there way out of them this is not done by accident it clearly demonstrated competent C&C and some level of Intel they got it from some place. A lot of Insurgents may be Crazy but they are far from stupid big difference.

Correction may never know.

No one is arguing that insurgents are stupid gorillas who would never use any useful intelligence that happened to fall into their hands. For what feels like the thirtieth time, you haven't identified a single leak that has anything-- anything whatsoever-- to do with actual threats.

I could just as well say, "Insurgents have been launching sophisticated attacks. Perhaps that has something to do with the results of Dancing With the Stars. After all, we'll just really never know..." It is a complete non sequitur. You've said nothing that would remotely justify your bloodlust and rage.

I don't have bloodlust Rage maybe a little about this guy is shame to those that have worn that uniform and and those that are wearing it now. Let's put it like this how many firefights, IDF, attacks, complex ambushes have there been since OEF/OIF off thousands proabably to many to count. I do belive some of this info leaked out may have aided the enemy that is a strong possibilty and I take offense to that since my brothers are over there and I have been there. Not mention the fact that not everyone come's back from depolyment and if you are trying to defend this maggot you have some ISSUES. When he does go to trial and I'm sure he will try to enter some plea bargin but if it found out beyond the shadow of doubt the severity he should get the dealth penalty. They need to set a precedence it's not okay to sell out your own kind ever!

So to summarize your points.

1. I'm not enraged. Ok, I am enraged.

2. Theere's been a lot of combat in the last decade or so.

3. For no reason whatsoever, I attribute some attacks on our troops to these leaks. There is no reason for me to offer any roof whatsoever or to refer to any specific allegations. I believe it!

Were not coming to an agreement. I don't if you served or have someone that has served close to you. My point is this has potentially put someone in unnecessary danger. Do you want types like him the ranks?

What does being gay have to do with releasing classified information to be published on a website? Are you saying being gay means having a lack of judgement and the inclination to betray your country?

I think Letusreason was being saracastic. If I recall earlier news postings correctly, I believe his motive for leaking all these documents was something along the line of being disgruntled for his experiences of being gay while in the military.

Being gay Todd compromises you in a blackmail situation, just like having a secret affair compromises a straight person. It does not matter, straight or gay he stole information and gave it to unauthorized persons. Mannning should be shot!

Don't ask don't tell has removed the blackmail situation. He is just a plain traitor, gay or not. But I still say we've spent enough on him already. We should accept his plea deal and be done with him.

Manning is learning a valuable and costly lesson. THE MILITARY DOES NOT PLAY GAMES. Since Manning learned nothing about Common Sense, Loyalty, and Consequences for his actions from his parents growing up, EXPECT TO LEARN THEM NOW. Technically we have been in State of War for some time and if I'm not mistaken, Manning could have been shot on the spot.

1. Yes, the military is an entirely serious organization that would never do something like assigning a 28-motorcycle escort to accompany a general to a social function...

2. "Technically we have been in State of War for some time and if I'm not mistaken, Manning could have been shot on the spot."

You are mistaken. Summary execution is allowed in only the most extreme cases. Whether or not we are technically in a state of war (and that is not at all clear), the UCMJ clearly prohibits summary executions in cases like this.

I agree, so long as he admits, in open court, that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

Do you want him to meet that what he did was illegal or wrong? There's a big difference. For example, it is apparently legal for our troops to fire on civilians who come rushing to the aid of wounded and dying people and then brush aside the fact that they've just wounded children by idiotically claiming that "you shouldn't bring your kids to a battlefield" (i.e. to the country in which you live). I happen to think that this kind of behavior is unquestionably wrong.

Why?

I guess by your logic you could argue that pedophiles that are released by technicalities should try to open day care centers.

yes, that's the logical conclusion you idiot.

Guy saw a problem, spoke up and was told to keep silent. He blew the whistle and now he's paying for it.

Everyone advocating for his continued punishment or worse needs to suck it up and stop whining. Punishing the person exposing an issue is not how you resolve those issues. it's how you keep them happening over and over again. But whatever, right? we can cover up any shortcomings of our military by throwing more money at it.

And lastly, I'm tired of seeing so many comments saying how he endangered lives and needs to pay etc etc. I would love to have that outlook, it's so simple and devoid of logic. ignorance is bliss or something like that i've been told.

If you think "he" is the one who endangered/is endangering lives, you'll be better to look a few levels above him for the actual threats.

He knew what he was doing and got caught he can rot.

u.r.dumb- I agree that exposing a wrong is the proper thing to do. That said, PFC Manning leaked hundreds of thousands of documents that he never read, therefor he could not possibly know that the information contained in those documents were "wrongs". That in and of itself removes whistle blower protection.

Mistakes happen in combat. We should own up to ours and let the sunlight clean them up. The problem with the military is that we have a zero tolerance for mistakes. Someone will be punished, every time. When someone is going to be punished that you don't want to punish, you protect them by hiding the act. Until we as a military can accept that @!$%# happens sometimes and we should just learn from our mistakes, we will continue to cover up the wrongs we commit.

Todd, you know as well as I do, that day will never come.

1. The Constitution offers a very specific definition of treason. This case does not meet that definition, which is precisely why Manning hasn't been charged with treason.

2. " Any release of documents related to troop movements, supply lines, diplomatic cables, etc., can be used by the enemy."

Manning didn't leak documents related to current or immanent troop movements. And it's completely unclear as to how leaking the cables that he did aided the enemy.

I disagree. He sent the documents to a source he knew would publish them to the world. The world certainly includes the enemies of the USA. The military and State Department both say the info included information that once known aided terrorist groups in understanding how we did things and the identity of individuals and other Countries that were giving us important intel. With his brothers and sisters in uniform dying in combat, he intentionally did acts that he had to know would aid the enemy. I think the death penalty should be considered as well if it can be shown one person died or was injured as a result of his actions.

I believe Arnold is correct. You may not remember, but a number of our supply convoys were raided and burned in Pakistan and Afghanistan right after the release of these documents. I believe some intel was garnered from those documents that led to the troop and supply movement, thus putting our service people in harm's way. Nonetheless, Manning was sworn to uphold and protect this information, but instead, he released it. It doesn't matter if the information was what kind of toilet paper an ambassador's maid uses, he was sworn to keep it secret. And he did not. That is a clear violation of the military code, trust and security; and Manning deserves the severest penalty for his treason.

" I believe some intel was garnered from those documents that led to the troop and supply movement, thus putting our service people in harm's way."

Perhaps you can explain the basis for this "belief." I don't recall any credible accusation that anyone has been harmed as a direct result of these leaks. And there certainly weren't any troop movements leaked. Perhaps you should try to acquaint yourself with the actual facts and allegations in this case before you spout off on it.

"The military and State Department both say the info included information that once known aided terrorist groups in understanding how we did things and the identity of individuals and other Countries that were giving us important intel."

Where have the military and the State Department said this?

Hey Lev, troll here much? Manning is a traitor. He leaked classified documents. Like I said, I don't care if it's the brand of toilet paper the maid uses. He was sworn to keep it a secret, and he didn't. Would you ever trust him to guard your secrets?

As for the revelations of troop movements, there's something like a quarter million pages of information this traitor leaked. And gee, how strange that attacks ramped up on our service people right after that. Hmmmm. Makes one wonder. Let's not forget our consulates either. It seems that if one were to decipher what goes on in one, that one might just plan an attack based on schedules, timing, funding for security, etc. See "September: Benghazi." Did Manning directly cause the attacks? No, but the information he willingly supplied was filled with all sorts of facts and figures regarding many things--right down to the blond, nurse mistress that Khaddafi had. (BTW, that was from one of the secret cables from an ambassador.)

Oh well, it's just American lives at stake, what does anyone care about that? Manning is no Robin Hood hero. He's a liar and a traitor, and should be treated as such.

Boy are you a deep thinker...

1) "As for the revelations of troop movements, there's something like a quarter million piece of information this traitor leaked. And gee, how strange that attacks ramped up on our service people right after that. Hmmmm. Makes one wonder."

Two problems here, professor. First, it's far from clear that "attacks ramped up on our service people right after that. In order to make that point you'd have to give some actual indication that there was a rise in the number of attacks immediately following the publication of these leaks.

Even if you could document an actual increase in the number of attacks (and I highly doubt that you can), you would have to provide some indication of an actual link between the leaks themselves and the attacks. Merely pointing out a particular event and a series of events that followed it in no sense indicates a causal relationship. For example, I could say, "I made an omelette last week, and this week it rained twice. Hmmm... makes one wonder," but that would be completely absurd.

2) Let's not forget our consulates either. It seems that if one were to decipher what goes on in one, that one might just plan an attack based on schedules, timing, funding for security, etc. See Benghazi.

Once more, there's a part of your argument that's missing here. You haven't made the slightest attempt to show how the diplomatic cables provided any information that wouldn't have otherwise been available that could have aided in a terrorist attack. Even if you could do that (and again, I doubt that you could) then you'd have to give some indication that anyone who has attacked an embassy actually learned any significant details from the cables. Given that you are the only person (to my knowledge) even suggesting a link between these leaks and the Benghazi attack, my hunch is that there's no connection whatsoever.

"Oh well, it's just American lives at stake, what does anyone care about that? "

Once more, do you have any evidence-- any evidence whatsoever-- to indicate that any American lives have been placed at risk by the publication of these cables (none of which, by the way, were marked "top secret")? If not, then what are you blathering on about?

"He's a liar and a traitor, and should be treated as such."

As I pointed out below, "treason" has a very specific meaning. This simply isn't treason, although it's certainly a crime.

" Did Manning directly cause the attacks? No, but the information he willingly supplied was filled with all sorts of facts and figures regarding many things--right down to the blond, nurse mistress that Khaddafi had. (BTW, that was from one of the secret cables from an ambassador.)"

What in the world does a cable referring to one of Khaddafi's mistresses have to do with an attack that took place long after Khadafi was killed? Hey, look-- I have a book here! It's filled with "all sorts of facts and figures regarding many things!" I better not let anyone look at it because then I would be responsible for some completely unrelated event!

Seriously, do you even attempt to think when you post here?

If only things were that simple.....

If it weren't for lawyers, the law would be simple.

@mathuin

1) A court martial IS a trial, genius. And this is exactly what is happening.

2) Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution. This case does not meet the criteria for treason, which is why he has not been charged with this crime.

3) The UCMJ does not allow for summary execution in this situation.

@Todd

If the only thing keeping us from a "who needs a trial, let's just kill the SOB 'cause we don't like him" mentality is lawyers, then I say thank God for lawyers.

To keep him prison, sure.