What an absolute load of codswallop Bushranger! A rant without substance, is becoming a habit for you. First of all, mitigating circumstances is not the legal term for "excuse". People go to jail all the time regardless of excuses. According to Law.com which I have linked to, mitigating circumstances "do not excuse or justify criminal conduct". The crime must be related to the mitigating circumstances. A crime of attacking someone who abused the accused is "mitigating circumstances". Attacking someone unrelated to the abuse is not. Legally, there are no mitigating circumstances in Manning's case. Manning was asked to perform an illegal order. He shunned normal channels, channels that would have protected him, and instead he released thousands of unrelated documents, including the names of Afgan sympathizers. There is no legal argument for mitigating circumstances, despite your temper tantrum. Yes, I've read your links. Your NY Times link is from June 2009 and has nothing to do with Manning. Actually, it says that the US military made mistakes, has owned up to those mistakes, and took steps to see that those mistakes don't happen again. I don't see how Manning's leak of thousands of classified documents has anything to do with that. I also read the New Yorker article. It's from April 2010, also before Manning. I read them both. I don't see how either has anything to do with Manning. I asked you to "Show some credibility and explain it in a post." You have refused to explain it in a post. You've basically surrendered the topic with your screaming rant. @Bushranger, I ask you again: What, exactly, was the "irrefutable proof" of war crimes? What document? I fail to see how releasing thousands of UNRELATED confidential diplomatic communications has anything to do with Manning being asked to perform an illegal order. What, exactly, is the war crime you are so focused on? Do you agree that Manning was given illegal orders? You really have no argument, Bushie. You absolutely can't prove how Manning's release of classified documents was related to the illegal orders he was given.
LoL, nothing wrong here. I can't see the point of starting 'yet another' thread when there's already a thread relevant to the topic. As more news comes in, I add to the existing convo.