clevergirl
Gold Member
- Oct 22, 2009
- 2,721
- 554
- 153
I thought manning released far more info than just war crimes though. In the manner that he released the information en mass without regard to content I cant honestly say that I think he should have cover. He really was going for releasing war crimes then he would have selected the particular information and released just that. I have a feeling that he released information out of malice and if that is true then he deserves what he got. If he was blowing a whistle, then I would think differently.
Either way, I would prefer that these things be mandated to a civilian trial. there is a SERIOUS conflict of interest in these trials when a whistleblower is tried by the entity that they blew the whistle on. It I would be akin to having a company that you work for preside over your criminal trial for blowing the whistle on their practices that cost them millions. I cannot in good faith call the trial even remotely fair as long as the military takes care of whistleblower cases. I am really confused why no one has challenged that premise before now anyway. With all the whistleblower protection laws that are out there you would thing that something like that would be an obvious thing to cover.
He was not a "whistleblower". First and foremost a whistleblower goes through proper channels afforded to them.