indeed, I don't know his biography, but do you?
To paint Manning as a weak, gay, sexually uncertain character suits those parties who'd rather distract from the contents of those leaks than to admit that parts of the US foreign policy are unethical.
I've read a lot about him and those things are pretty much common knowledge by now.
I would not go so far as to paint Manning as 'weak, gay, sexually uncertain', but I definitely would think twice when confronted with his history if I were to give him some clearance level (not that I'll ever be in a position to do so).
Manning strikes me as someone that has a pretty highly developed sense of what is right and what is wrong. US foreign policy is not just 'unethical', I think it transcends that several levels at least.
The main reason why the US Government is going after Manning is not because it distracts the attention from US foreign policy, but mostly because he made them look like fools.
to me, discussing and speculating his state of mind, his personality from a armchair just doesn' feel right.
It might not even correlate with his actions. They count and were well intended, ethical, brave, helping and in a good democratic spirit.
They were also foolish, off, dangerous and endangering.
I am convinced that people with different psych.
No, I don't claim that.
> Or how come, you dismiss him as a fragile person?
Because, unlike you, I know his biography by heart.
> it was the lowest clearance by the way:
"Receiving a TS/SCI security clearance (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information)."
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning