The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.
How so? Manning is the one who gave it to them. If I give a loaded handgun to my five year old, and he shoots and kills a person, is it not my fault? Or is your contention that newspaper reporters (trying desperately to get any edge over the competition) are more trustworthy with sensitive data than a five year old is with a handgun?
Manning was a punk with a political agenda who recklessly endangered the lives of Americans. Snowden at least did something that could be colorably called civil disobedience. Manning is just a tool. Of course, the problem with civil disobedience is that sometimes you've got to take the hit to make your point.
And what is the Truth, since you seem to know so much about both the legal profession and the Truth? I once litigated a patent case where a key infringement question was whether a headphone whose rear cavity was sufficiently leaky had a meaningful acoustical compliance that could be compared to another acoustical compliance. One side said yes, the other side said no. There were no textbooks that addressed the exact configuration in question. Both sides had experts. I was genuinely thoroughly convinced that our side was right, and I thought our expert was more qualified. But it never crossed my mind to accuse opposing counsel of misconduct because they espoused a credible position that was favorable to their client and that I disagreed with. The case settled, so there was never a final determination of which side was right. But since you have the key to all Truth in the universe, perhaps you could share with me the True Answer to this puzzle.
By the way, you miss the whole point of what lawyers do in litigation. (Plenty of lawyers write contracts all day. All I do these days is write patent applications all day.) They are not there to search for some final, objective Truth. Usually, there is no final, objective Truth. They are there as advocates. Their purpose is to make the best case they can for the one of many possible interpretations of law or facts that is most favorable to their clients.
In other words, if you are searching for some ultimate, philosophical Truth, call a priest. If you are searching for a falsifiable model of an objective phenomenon, call a scientist. If you have been accused of, for example, "Reckless Endangerment," and you want somebody who will zealously argue that your particular behavior was not "reckless" according to the statutory definition, hire a lawyer.
I like how you toss out a token reference to Democratic corruption, and then happily regurgitate, verbatim, the Democrats' talking point that "Republicans are the Party of No." It must be nice to live in a world where there is a political party that you trust to do all your thinking for you. Some of us don't have that luxury.
By the way, to bring this back on point, let's not forget that the DNC is practically a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Media. Or that Chris Dodd is now chairman of the MPAA. When a Democrat inevitably introduces this legislation, I will be perfectly content to let Republicans play the "No" card.
Words have both meaning and context. "Unlimited" in a service contract does not mean "mathematically infinite." Ordinary people understand that, pay for their "unlimited" internet service, and happily use it to their hearts' content as much as they want for ordinary, consumer-grade internet operations. Want to watch streaming HD video, all day, every day? Go for it. You won't use nearly as much bandwidth as this guy did. How else would you have Verizon inform people, in a simple, understandable way, that they are providing internet service with no arbitrary usage caps as long as you aren't trying to host google.com? And how are they not within their rights to say, "We haven't charged you extra for your abuse of our 'unlimited' internet service (it is "unlimited" after all), but if you keep it up, we will refuse to provide you service in the future"? Should they be compelled to do business with everybody?
What this guy did is analogous to going into an "all you can eat" restaurant, filling up buckets full of food, and standing on the sidewalk outside selling it---and then complaining when they ask you to leave. It's the kind of thing that smarmy, basement-dwelling geeks do when they pretend to not understand what a word means because technically it has a different definition in a different context. It's also why they can't get dates.
Like GNU/Linux. No one cared.
Hate to break it to you, but we still don't care. Seriously. 99% of the people who use Android have no idea that it has anything to do with Linux. They just call it Android. And of the small minority of people who run "Linux" on the desktop, about 99% (from my observation), just call it "Linux." Richard Stallman and a handful of his groupies are still the only people who still care about putting "GNU" in front of Linux.
This particular guy is blowing smoke, but at least he's attempting to address a problem. That is already better than the hordes of people who apparently wish the rest of us would forget that every now and then someone goes bonkers and shoots up a bunch of elementary school kids.
You have more faith in the DNC than I do. All I've seen them do is use tragedies to push their long-term political goal of ensuring that Americans do not have access to firearms. (They're not subtle about this goal, except when they're pushing gun laws. Then they pretend to have never said it.) None of the measures they have proposed would have done anything to prevent those tragedies, but they would have the effect of advancing the DNC's distinctly statist agenda of making people increasingly reliant on the State for everything from basic necessities to personal safety.
(And please, no rants about how Republicans are evil and corrupt too. Yes, they are. But on this issue they happen to be coincidentally right.)
If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average.