What we are witnessing in the legal moves against Bradley Manning is what happens when the Rule of Law is replaced by the Rule of Man. In this case, and as has been the case since the turn of the century, the Man is the President of the United States.
The saddest sentence in the article is the last one: Apparently if Bradley Manning had committed war crimes, instead of exposing them, he would be a free man, instead of facing life in prison for his heroic deeds.
America was delusional to think it could dispense with the hard-won Geneva Conventions and escape with its soul intact. Now it too operates a reign of terror where extra-judicial killings are an accepted part of national policy. This will not be easy to reverse. I worry that the USA might never get back to what it once was.
Many years ago, when Charles Manson was adding new definitions to urban terror, I read an interview given by one of his associates. In the interview, the associate, and I can't recall his name but I seem to recall that he was a Viet Nam vet, said that he had warned Charles against starting to kill. He had told him that murdering was like smoking in that once you start, it's hard to stop.
The US Special Forces all the way up to their Commander-in-Chief would benefit from reflecting on that. And to say the 'others' do it is no more an excuse for men in power than it is for schoolchildren in the play-ground.

Yes, there is and remains a legal duty to expose war crimes!
But that is where it ends.
There is no requirement to expose official secrets. Or release entirely unvalidated information that puts thousands of real lives at real risk!
Or indeed, the sacred oath one takes, when entrusted with the same!
If anyone can say with any surety whatsoever, that the release of confidential information often supplied by other more moral whistle blowers, has not resulted in imprisonment or murder of any or some of those sources, then perhaps Bradley could be given a good hard slap on the wrist with a wet tram ticket, and a dishonourable discharge!
However, given a number of those resources may not now be reporting, one can suspect the worst has occurred?
There is also another legal requirement never ever mentioned by Bradley's misguided support group; namely, do the crime and do the time!
Rhrosty.

This trial is about all those things raised by the author. Manning has to set the example to discourage other leaking of documents or whistleblowers.

I imagine the US public service and defence services have similar Codes of Conduct as Australia, which obligate employees to report fraud, unethical behaviour, mismanagement and breaches of the Code to a higher authority. The reality is very different to what is written on paper. The written word on paper is to give a veneer of accountability.

In truth whistleblowers, leakers or those who report on them often experience the harshest, life-changing and rigorous pursuits because they have broken what is essentially the Gang code. And it is like a gang. You speak out then you become the betrayer, not the other way around regardless of the severity and importance of the information being revealed.

It is Bradley Manning's legal duty to expose war crimes, it is not his duty to post out hundreds of thousands of documents including diplomatic correspondence.

An editorial in to-days Australian is clear and unambiguous. Private Manning is on trial for treachery.
By his own admission he has pleaded guilty to 10 out of 22 charges. Manning’s treachery has undoubtedly endangered lives and harmed the interests of his employer the United States. As a serving solder his loyalty should be to the country he pledged to defend.
Private Manning is deserving of the penalties proscribed by law.
It is of course lawful, but at the same time misguided, for clever lawyers to make excuse for treachery, especially when the treacherous behaviour is in accord with a left wing agenda.

Oh come on girl, a lawyer preaching about truth & honesty.

Pull the other one lady, it yodels.