Manning leaked facts about actions of the government that most citizens wouldn't want to be part of, prompting change. He/she also released stuff that was ethically good or neutral, but damaged the security. On the balance I'd say that was a service to the mankind and the US, motives irrelevant.

Motives are irrelevant to being a hero?

It's a pretty low bar these days.

To those downvoting the parent post out of disagreement: outside tech circles that is the mainstream opinion of Chelsea Manning's actions.

It's not my opinion, but I have several mil and ex-mil acquiantances and they were quite literally appalled when the sentence was commuted. Most of them are of the 'throw away the key' disposition, feeling that Ms Manning violated all her oaths and put lives at risk.

It may be the opinion in military circles (and I can understand why) but I don't think it's a mainstream opinion. I think all most people really remember about Manning's leaks are the civilian murder videos.

I saw the footage. "Don't bring your kids to war" was probably wrong as it was they who brought the war to the kids but I think that was a just a human reaction when they knew they'd got it badly wrong. They lit up a van with the minigun like they often had to, easy to call it with a replay button y'know. Very sad about them in it and them doing it too. I don't think the crew were 'rage lets go kill us some randomers'. Unfortunately, it happens. What was the reason and justification for releasing the footage and then all those cables too?

What would concern me far more is that although a lot of highly illegal activity was exposed by other leaks, Snowden et al not a single person to date has actually had any form of legal sanction to my knowledge. They may as well have not bothered.

And fellow police members will sweep another police member planting evidence or torturing a suspect under the rug. Doesn't make it any more right. Just highlights that the whole organization is rotten.

Mil and ex-mil people might not like Manning because she made the military look bad.

Manning did expose war crimes which is an act of heroism. She had similar motivations to snowden. Unfortunately the means of whistleblowing was careless in comparison to snowden which ultimately damaged her goal and public understanding of her cause.

Maybe the lesson is if youre choose to take such a big risk for a moral cause you need to take every possible effort to not cause collatoral damage along the way.

She didn't know what she was exposing, though - I don't think someone should get credit for accidentally doing something good while putting people's lives at risk.

What does mental health have to do with heroism?

To some people, bravery is often indistinguishable from insanity, dropping on the proverbial grenade, chasing down a machine-gun nest. Most heroes don't feel brave though...

Challenging someones mental health is the modern means of invalidating that person, completely, and removing them from the narrative.

Motive is relevant when determining if someone acted heroically.

Manning exposed US war crimes.

No, no he didn't. None of the information he released revealed anything criminal whatsoever. All he did was violate his oath and the law, and for what?

> No, no he didn't

Yes, yes he did.

> All he did was violate his oath and the law, and for what?

Public service. It's pretty much the best justification for doing what you mentioned.

Snowden also released troves of information without regard to contents.

Did you watch collateral murder?