Actually Bradley Manning recounting his past encounter over an article about corruption would certainly justify him "reasonably believing" this, the only requirement. It also allows this if there is reason to believe the information will be concealed or destroyed.You also gloss over the requirement that the leaker show that an attempted disclosure to his superiors would result in a detriment. In practice, requirements like this are often the toughest to overcome, and I see no indication that it would have been met here.
Under the UK law the information needs to be considered "damaging" to constitute a crime. Granted, their definition of "damaging" is sufficiently broad to allow them to argue anything that reflects badly on them including exposure of rampant abuses constitutes an offense.This is just wrong. I don't really know how else to say it, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Stealing and leaking 400,000 classified military documents and diplomatic cables is a crime. That is not an "open question."
He is a whistleblower and that is what matters. Do you always believe only what the government says?What's your point? He's not a whistleblower under US law, which is the only thing that really matters to him right now.
I did look at the link and the one gif just shows the people I talked about who hung around the street corner, but did not appear to be near the journalists that got fired on.As I explained to you above, that particular picture was offered to refute your nonsense assertion that they weren't anywhere near the group. Had you gone to the link I provided, you would have seen the other weapons.
Those pictures are censored to the point of being useless. We can only clearly see an Ak-47. As far as lying, it is quite possible. You apparently think the military hasn't lied before.Unless you want to argue that that gun is actually a fake and that the government (and the soldiers who were on the scene) are lying about the fact that the other AK47s and RPGs were found there, you're wrong. If you are arguing that, let me know so I can stop wasting my time.
The convention does not just apply to people who have been detained if that is what you are saying. If it did Article 18 would make no damn sense. This article would not make a lot of sense either:It's not a "live battlefield" exception, it's the fact that the particular section that you were referring to discussed what signatories were required to do after they had taken combatants into their power.
Notice that it says "at all times" not just when there is no fighting going on. If this only pertained to the wounded being "within their power" and that meants detained then there is no reason why collecting the wounded would be mentioned. "Within their power" most likely means only that the party has the power to do something against them. Hell, if the First Geneva Convention was referring only to people who had already been detained they would be considered POW's and so it would not make sense to have the Third Geneva Convention explicitly dealing with the treatment of POW's.Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.
The hell there isn't. If a person is not obviously seriously wounded that may be the case, but generally that person will still be acting hostile so it is a moot point. They are not permitted to fire on people who are unarmed and/or wounded so badly as to prevent them from defending themselves.There is no restriction on firing on wounded people on a battlefield. That would be exceedingly stupid.
Article 18 concerned whether civilians would be allowed to spontaneously care for wounded people. I do not think the idea of that article is that a person can be killed for a spontaneous act of kindness simply because a wounded guy with a gun doesn't have an emblem on his shoulder.Moreover, you still haven't acknowledged or even discussed the fact that these things only apply to lawful combatants who satisfy the aforementioned criteria.
Do you mean the reasoning that an unarmed person evacuating a wounded unarmed person cannot reasonably be presumed to be a combatant?Well, there's nothing I can really do to argue against reasoning like this. You can think what you want to think.
What part are you saying is incorrect there?Incorrect.
Are you seriously saying there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions prohibiting soldiers from firing on unarmed civilians?Incorrect.