I don't think the I-would-support-Manning-if-he-had-selectively-released-info position is morally tenable. You're saying that some of his releases were vital an

I don't think the I-would-support-Manning-if-he-had-selectively-released-info position is morally tenable. You're saying that some of his releases were vital and necessary (you'd support those). And then somehow, the perceived damage or liability of the other releases negates the "useful" ones? But I don't see how it's a zero sum game. More importantly, Manning did give a bunch of unredacted content to people whom he trusted to release it appropriately. And they did for a while, redacting names in the cables. But then, "[t]he rest of the cables were published unredacted by WikiLeaks on 1 September 2011, after David Leigh and Luke Harding of The Guardian inadvertently published the passphrase for a file that was still online..." [1] Also, who's to judge the quality of each release of info? Divulging the name of operatives would be a bad thing (Wikipedia[1] says the state department had to relocate some people after the Cablegate leak), but not to pacifists who believe the US shouldn't be conducting secret ops overseas. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Diplomatic_cables.2C_Guantanamo_Bay_files http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Diplomatic_cabl...