Let's try again: Go back, read the elements of the crime of aiding the enemy.
a) He leaked classified information.
b) He knew that that information would be made public.
c) He knew that the United States is engaged in hostile activities.
d) He knew that elements of hostile forces use public information to gain advantage in staging attacks against American forces.
Ergo, by making that information public and available to enemy forces he engaged in aiding the enemy. It really is that simple.

Politics have nothing to do with my argument, nor are they a defense to the criminal act - my only point in bringing Hitler into the argument is to point out that outrageous things can be justified for the "greater good" - which is entirely your argument. The road to hell is paved with "good intentions." I never claimed that Bradley Manning was "innocent," nor did I claim he was the devil's right-hand man. I merely pointed out that: 1) he proceeded, with knowledge aforethought, to commit a criminal act, and deserves to face the consequences of his actions; and 2) I have no sympathy for him. He made his bed, he may sleep in it.

Now, having made a simple and cogent argument, where is the fault in the reasoning? Is political expediency a defense? No. Is any element of the crime lacking? No. Where is this political bent I am accused of having?

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich