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?
It is apparent that you are either not listening or don't want to hear.
Hitler was your idea, I never said Hitler did anything for the greater good- BTW.
The only things you have stated correctly are that he knew he leaked classified information and he knew the U.S. was engaged in hostile activity.
"He knew that that information would be made public." How could he possibly know this? You are assuming because of your political bent. This leak was to a group that does its own analysis of the information. They could have decided (as they do with a large part of the information they get) that they shouldn't go public with it.
"He knew that elements of hostile forces use public information to gain advantage in staging attacks against American forces."
You have really gone off the deep end. This is pure speculation - you have no idea what he thought about hostile forces having access to the information he provided - which, as it turns out, they did not.
"It really is that simple." Apparently it is not.
"Politics have nothing to do with
my argument"
Really, but still no proof of criminal activity?
You claim he is a criminal - but he has not yet had a trial?
You have anointed yourself judge and jury.
If that is not political bias then I don't know what is.
"The road to hell is paved with "good intentions."" You should heed your own advice.
"I have no sympathy for him." More political prejudgement.
Your argument is far from cogent, and the simplicity you claim is mere imputation of your own bias.
Mind you, I believe the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty is still in force? Or have we abolished that relic too?
I know what I think and I don't need you to tell me.
You should consider exactly what it is you're saying.
