Leaking is usually a crime, but leakers know the risk. What they can hope for, but not expect, is that what they leak is sufficiently compelling, and in the public’s interest to know, that they will be pardoned or otherwise receive leniency. That’s the gamble they take. Do you disagree?
What Manning leaked didn’t meet that standard. You might think it should have, but it obviously didn’t.
Now if the President chooses to leak, or authorizes someone else to leak, nothing can be done - the President is fully authorized to classify/declassify anything he wants. That’s simply a benefit of the office. Yes the power can be used for petty ends, but it’s perfectly legal.
There is an interview somewhere with Obama where he says something like “I need to avoid the temptation to believe my own bullshit” and I think that’s what happened to his presidency.
He seems to have believed, based upon his prior career experiences, that he could enact substantive change by the sheer force of his rhetoric and personal magnetism. Obviously, this turned out to be pure-D wrong.
But that’s the point: many times there really isn’t, is there? Despite all the rhetoric, what we see play out time and time again:
Government does something illegal
Someone points it out
That someone is ignored
That someone goes public, perhaps hoping the rhetoric of “protecting whistle blowers” is true.
Government is found to be breaking the law
Whistleblower gets in trouble, perhaps spending much time in jail
Yes, there are rhetoric and promises, but in reality that’s often all they are.
And one of the real ironies is, for example, if you do read Obama’s campaign promises, he encourages people to point out waste, corruption, and illegality, promising to protect them if they come forward.
While I agree that some whistleblowers have been unfairly treated (not all, definitely not all), I cannot agree with the notion that Obama encouraged people to point out corruption specifically so that he could arrest and detain whistleblowers. No politician is that sadistic.
But the first clip, from the Holy Grail, addresses exactly the point. The leader tells a peasant to shut up and uses the coercive power of the state to enforce it.
Or did you mean this one?
But the second clip, from History Of The World, addresses exactly that point. “It’s simply a benefit of the office” are your words, not mine. I don’t think “It’s good to be the king!” is far enough from your notion to be a straw man.
Your position on this matter is legalistic, authoritarian, and inflexible.
You’ve proven completely unwilling to acknowledge any of the many compelling reasons to recognize the wrongness of the situation described by the linked article, so I’m going to stop trying to debate you and just use the fertile ground for satire that your thinking affords.