If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?
Politics that do not have immediate personal consequences (or politics too hopeless to engage in) can easily become a spectator sport.
On that level, when an instance of "uh, all my private communication just leaked to the NSA" is followed by a case of "oh, tons of classified documents just leaked to the general public", then it's likely that this will be understood as a quid pro quo, i.e. appreciated by a large number of spectators.
"He has acknowledged that he publicly released the classified information that Valerie Plame Wilson was a secret agent for the CIA, triggering the Plame Affair, though he has said it was inadvertent."[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician...
Further, according to [1] the case was pressed anew as a civil suit (by Wilson(s), and later, CREW, against Cheney, Rove, and Libby) which reached as high as the Supreme Court, failing at each step.
"The Wilsons have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. On May 20, 2009, the Justice Department, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan ...
"According to the brief filed by the [Obama] Justice Department:
"Petitioners allege that Novak's July 14, 2003 column publicly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert CIA employment and that that disclosure 'destroyed her cover as a classified CIA employee.' Petitioners, however, allege that Novak's source was Armitage, and do not allege that any of the three defendants against whom Mr. Wilson presses his First Amendment claim-Cheney, Rove, and Libby-caused that column to be published. In the absence of factual allegations that Mr. Wilson's alleged injury from the public disclosure of his wife's CIA employment is 'fairly traceable' to alleged conduct by Cheney, Rove, or Libby, petitioners have failed to establish Article III jurisdiction over Mr. Wilson's First Amendment claim."[1]
(italics mine)
I would. I don't trust the government to decide what should and shouldn't be confidential, and I'd be curious to hear any justifications for why the government deserves even the slightest bit of trust.
What other crimes would you then permit because you don't trust the government? Would it be OK to stab soldiers then? They work the government. How about robbing postal workers? Which crimes no longer are crimes when the government is the victim, and which rules do you use to determine that?
And then take the same question and apply it to corporations. You may not trust Google, for instance; would you say that it's OK then for a Google employee to leak 700,000 random emails from GMail because that would embarrass Google? If not, why is your logic different here?
What do you mean by "OK"? The question I was responding to was whether I would defend him, and I said yes. I'm not making a legal or moral argument, I'm just expressing my personal preference.
in his video interview with the Guardian Snowden explicitly contrasted what he did with what Manning did : snowden looked at what he was leaking and claims he kept stuff that would harm the US. ( he still supports what Manning did).
this is the problem Manning literally did not read the classified information he was releasing and given his obligation to protect sensitive information and knowing that in some cases information was classified to protect lives( e.g informant names), his actions were morally reckless. if he had leaked just the collateral murder video , the he would have been justified.
Further, the exclusion of possible war crimes is setting up a false equivalence. It is the crux of the situation, determines motive, and is the fundamental point of the release. Removing that, changes the situation enough that it is no longer a good comparison or rough equivalence.