> There is no way a person at Manning's level could be expected to cherry pick effectively. How can he decide what is in the public interest, know what evidence

> There is no way a person at Manning's level could be expected to cherry pick effectively. How can he decide what is in the public interest, know what evidence is enough, know what evidence is dangerous, and so on. This is exactly what whistleblowing is about. You understand and have evidence that a specific crime is being committed, and you release info about that specific crime. If you don't have a grasp of what is going on, then the proper response isn't "hey I'm not sure what I'm doing or looking at, so let me publish everything I can get my mits on because I think there is something fishy."