Unfortunately, NW, despite your elegant legal palaver, you have still provided NO PROOF of a crime, nor the intention of committing one.
You don't know Mr. Manning any better than I do. You cannot avow to his intent.
As for the Rosenbergs, at the time they were murdered by the state there was no PROOF of their involvement -
that only surfaced much later. So they were guilty in the future?
Your attempt to disguise the political aspects of the Manning case behind a hypothetical legal argument clearly demonstrates
lack of any real evidence of a crime.
Again, there is nothing to "win" here. We all lose when we, wittingly or not, allow our government to "cover up" its crimes
by falsely accusing others.
Of course there is an ideological element: the crime of which he is accused is an ideological one, not a technical legal argument. He is accused of aiding a perceived "enemy", whose status as such is purely ideological.
These so-called "enemies of the United States" are the result of an ideological position with respect to a people who feel they
have been persecuted by our government.
Labeling "all people" terrorists does not make it so. There are legitimate grievances against the U.S. -
this is not a justification of acts of terrorism by either side - and the war against the Iraqi and Afghan people was
initiated by the U.S.
From what I read of your post, you rely on the fact that something could have resulted from his actions. But it did not (in any concretely
proven way).
I have seen no proof that he willingly intended to hurt anyone or anything except a government that was trying to cover up its atrocities.
