[CaptainHaplo]

But I refuse to damn in general the possibility that somebody refuses to be obedient when he would need to violate his conscience in the meaning of needing to support the violation of constitutional principles and human interests of he nation's people when staying loyal to those who deliberately decide to ignore and violate these, and ordering the military to support this personal agenda.

Nothing in the oath says anything about protecting the human interests of the nation's people. It is the role of the government to do this, not the role of the soldier individually. This is trying to say that even a no-stripe private should be able to determine what is "good" for the interest of the nation. We have elections for that. Some good, some bad, but it is the job of the people to determine their course, not the role of the military.

The oath is rather clear actually so let me ask, to claim this was done under the "support and defend the Constitution" clause, one has to be able to show that the Constitution was in danger. Where was the threat to the Constitution? There wasn't one. Where in any of these documents does it show that the Constitution was violated and disregarded?

There was much material released that just badmouthed individual leaders or countries

Then there was material that showed that the real assessement of persons and countries decisevely differs from the wanted media propaganda and what the "official" Washington tells the world that it is thinking about said persons and countries

Finally there was material released that simply illustrates how Washington kicks other nation'S soveriegnity with both boots and tries to conspirate and lobby for economic or other own interest by trying to punish opther governments if these governments do not accept to delibaertly act in violation of their own people'S explciit will.

None of this violates the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that the US Government cannot use leverage (political, monetary, military, etc) in its foreign policy duties.

The question was what to do when you are in thge tricky situation that you should be loyal to a principle, and at the same time should be loyal to a single or group of individuals who violate these principles.

How is this a question? For a civilian ok maybe it is, but the oath says nothing about "you decide whether you think this is in line with your own interpretation of what you think the Constitution says, and then don't follow it if you don't like it." Its not about "principles", its about protecting those that would overthrow the Constitution. Not one single thing that has been released can be shown to qualify as an "enemy, either foreign or domestic".

Seriously, people consider groups like Oathkeepers "fringe" because they are military and civil servants who recognize that certain orders that they may one day be given would violate the Constitutional guarantees we as citizens have. For example, ordering all the privately owned firearms to be confiscated is direct violation, and they make it know that they would not follow sucn an unlawful order. Where can Manning (or whoever did this if not him) point to any action in those leaks and say "Here is a direct violation of the US Constitution"? Whoever it is that did this - can't make that claim.

So the "principles" arguement is shown not to hold legal water. There are recordings of him stating that he did this to let the public - specifically he states his view that the US Government is in the wrong. He makes it clear that his intent is to create a change of direction through public outcry using this classified material. This is a violation of law. You want to talk Constitutional principles? Ok - this guy just violated them because we have elections for changing direction. Take the Apache tape that was released. It was released because the leaker disagrees with the war. So change the direction by legal means - not illegal ones!

This is what makes the principles arguement so laughable - to do this you have to lack principles! As for this:

That's why I think it is inevitable to give Manning a public trial

Not going to happen. He is not legally entitled to one, and while his lawyer will attempt to get public outcry up for one, there is no legal basis or reason to allow it. The only reason anyone wants this is so that he can be made into a martyr.

As far as Assange is concerned, and Wikileaks, they did nothing criminal by publishing it.

There is no data showing Assange was directly involved with either gaining or releasing the data. As long as that stays true, then I agree. However, any person nother that knowingly releases information that results in the death of a human being, such as some of these documents may do by pointing out informers, etc, are, by US law, accessories to murder. If they result in the death of a US Citizen, then those laws are applicable. This is a protection against vigilante justice among other things. So to claim that Wikilieaks et al are free and clear is incorrect.

There is a big difference between a whistleblower and a traitor. A whistleblower does not commit a crime to point out what they think may be another crime. A traitor hides behind any shield that might protect him. This isn't about censoring the media (though nice attempt to divert the discussion), its about whether or not any group, media or otherwise, has a duty to deal with the information they have in a responsible way. If releasing it causes an increased risk of death to others, you don't release it. DUH!

Before anyone starts making the argument that releasing stuff "might" save future lives - remember you don't have the right to go walk down the road, blow some guys head off as he walks the other way, and then use the defense "but he was going to be the next hitler"! You cannot tell the future, but some things blatently and obviously rasie the real risk to other humans - like releasing some things. While releasing information that includes informant details has a very slim chance to change the big picture, your sacrificing lives to try it. I don't care if its Assange, Wiki or anyone else, no private individual or group, media or otherwise, has the right to play with human lives to that degree, especially in attempts to manipulate the public.