I don't at all disagree with ensuring that the public has all of the information available to them that can possibly be provided; that's already how it's suppos

I don't at all disagree with ensuring that the public has all of the information available to them that can possibly be provided; that's already how it's supposed to work. I'm not on the inside of the Army but I'll say that much of what was leaked (as described by the Guardian, et al) was not that surprising, but that's because I was paying attention to existing public-source news, blogs, etc. But if Manning managed to only leak material that was already kind of out there, that was only by sheer luck (the first nuclear bomb killed no one after all; it was detonated in the middle of nowhere). > With respect to the harmful effects of what was leaked This is what we call "no harm; no foul". It's not something I believe in with regard to classified information (at least when you can't be bothered to actually read through the classified information). The reasoning is simple: Let's say for example that I tie you down and move to shoot you and realize I'm out of ammo. So I duck out of the hut to get more, and when I return you've been freed by a passing bystander. No harmful effects came to you, right? So I should just be free to go, right? No harm, no foul, after all.