"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Government needs to be held accountable, and sometimes this means
disclosing information it would rather not see made public. But
if one chooses to do this in the name of some claimed moral nobility,
one also chooses the consequences that go with this. The problem with
the Mannings of this world is that they want to be the Saviors Of
Mankind, but want this to be consequence-free.

You have a point there. A big difference between say Gandhi or Martin
Luther King and many of today's protestors is Gandhi and MLK were prepared
to go to jail for their beliefs, they even recognized it could be a useful
tactic to pressure the authorities. But it does seem some of today's
progressives figure on going home after the protest even if they broke the
law.

Worst of all, Manning and Assange didn't act to *selectively* disclose
what they felt was a set of bad actions by the US government. They
simply dumped everything in sight into the public eye

Not so, they have released only a tiny fraction of the U.S. diplomatic
cables they have, and *some* of the material they have released has been
edited to prevent harm to individuals.

IMO Wikileaks has done some good work, revealing things that should have
been revealed. However I am concerned that they have put people in harm's
way by identifying them (e.g. Afghans working with the govt.). And the
group's leader, Mr. Assange, appears to have several screws loose.