> He broke an arbitrary rule

The rules against releasing classified information are in no way arbitrary and have been long-standing parts of military and foreign affairs since their inception. There has been no time when releasing an indiscriminate cache of State Department cables would have ever been considered a legal gray area. (Indeed, the confidentiality of diplomatic communication has been a norm that has existed for thousands of years: http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/jonsson.htm). Manning very clearly broke the law and could not have failed to know that he was breaking the law.

if you care that deeply about morals and ethics, you need to be for the complete abandonment of the Armed Forces. which is a classic pacifist position, but it should be clear that there can't be a grey area. you either have an apparatus to kill other human beings (incl. collateral damage) or you don't. insisting on clean war is hypocrisy. insisting on a clean and nice army is hypocrisy - soldiers exist to project force through violence, aka killing human beings.

policy has changed in regards to gays and females in the military, yes. but where exactly has there been policy impact when it comes to the ones of the receiving end of the military force? the US bombs people all over the world, all the time, women, children, no problemo. not a US citizen, no rights at all.

hypocrisy. "the grace of your democracy guides the US Armed Forces". HORSESHIT.

Makes you wonder why Manning joined up in the first place, consider the highly public ethical and practical failures of the executive branch and the army in the context of Iraq.