The correct "route" has worked just fine in many other cases (Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah killings in Iraq).
Regardless though, there were many other routes Manning could have taken that would have been more proper.
And whatever route Manning took, he could have limited his disclosures to those detailing war crimes instead of a mass disclosure of classified operational information.
>The correct "route" has worked just fine in many other cases (Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah killings in Iraq).
On the contrary, there is no scarcity of examples of whistleblower protection failing miserably at protecting the whistleblower. It is a defective system that one would be a fool to put any trust in. Advocacy of that path is naive or ignorant at best.
>Regardless though, there were many other routes Manning could have taken that would have been more proper.
That is speculation, but I agree it is possible. Manning himself would probably agree with that. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that.
>And whatever route Manning took, he could have limited his disclosures to those detailing war crimes instead of a mass disclosure of classified operational information
That appears to be true, though the importance of the "classified operational information" appears to be wildly exaggerated for the most part. Lots of the material which is classified arguably shouldn't be.
Personally, my opinion is that the disclosures have been overall beneficial to US citizens and therefore to the US gov't. Far more useful to people all over the world who are interested in honest and just discourse, and foreign relations than to US enemies as operational intelligence.
Regardless though, there were many other routes Manning could have taken that would have been more proper.
And whatever route Manning took, he could have limited his disclosures to those detailing war crimes instead of a mass disclosure of classified operational information.