3 ms·

I'm objecting only to the assertion that Manning acted out of "tremendous conscience". The evidence clearly shows that this is false. I didn't say anything abou

I'm objecting only to the assertion that Manning acted out of "tremendous conscience". The evidence clearly shows that this is false. I didn't say anything about the content he leaked (other than it doesn't pertain to the "crime" you're claiming he was "attempting to report"), whether he deserved his sentence, whether this is a valid legal defense, or anything else you're talking about here. Manning dumped docs not out of "tremendous conscience", but immature rage. That's a settled fact of record, and that's all my comment was meant to point out.

fineman 11y ago
> The evidence clearly shows [...] No, your source shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't even purport to address the issue of causality. There's nothing more than conjecture (anywhere) as to what the straw that broke Manning's conscience was, and it's irrelevant because it's just the straw. It's focusing on the messenger not the criminal. What we do know is that Manning tried to report war crimes, first to a commander and then to the media, and was unable to be heard and stop the crimes. This didn't end the duty to report them, it just exhausted the "proper" channels. > That's a settled fact of record, and that's all my comment was meant to point out. Your comment was meant to be the same baseless slander that all other baseless, factless, slander-filled posts are. There are sources that directly contradict you and yet you choose to continue. Your posts are part of a campaign of lies to destroy the life of an innocent - if not a hero.