[fnordfnordfnord]

Soldiers have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, so a soldier who sees evidence of gov't wrongdoing suddenly has a dilemma on his or her hands.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

source: http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

[saraid216]

It's only a dilemma if and only if whistleblowing is the only possible route for upholding the Constitution in the face of government wrongdoing.

[fnordfnordfnord]

No, the use of a "route" that is known to be ineffective doesn't count.

[mpyne]

The correct "route" has worked just fine in many other cases (Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah killings in Iraq).

Regardless though, there were many other routes Manning could have taken that would have been more proper.

And whatever route Manning took, he could have limited his disclosures to those detailing war crimes instead of a mass disclosure of classified operational information.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>The correct "route" has worked just fine in many other cases (Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah killings in Iraq).

On the contrary, there is no scarcity of examples of whistleblower protection failing miserably at protecting the whistleblower. It is a defective system that one would be a fool to put any trust in. Advocacy of that path is naive or ignorant at best.

>Regardless though, there were many other routes Manning could have taken that would have been more proper.

That is speculation, but I agree it is possible. Manning himself would probably agree with that. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that.

>And whatever route Manning took, he could have limited his disclosures to those detailing war crimes instead of a mass disclosure of classified operational information

That appears to be true, though the importance of the "classified operational information" appears to be wildly exaggerated for the most part. Lots of the material which is classified arguably shouldn't be.

Personally, my opinion is that the disclosures have been overall beneficial to US citizens and therefore to the US gov't. Far more useful to people all over the world who are interested in honest and just discourse, and foreign relations than to US enemies as operational intelligence.