I dunno, I see these laundry-lists of supposed evils and none of it is all that convincing to me as being something we should be more concerned about than the evils and abuses of secrecy that WikiLeaks exposed:
- The "Bradley Manning is a traitor" stuff doesn't wash or is at minimum extremely questionable
from where I'm standing (and Washington would need to put the people responsible for the Valerie Plame scandal in the dock to regain the authority to talk about "treason" with any coherency, which is one reason they haven't gone there... EDIT: correction, they did eventually charge him with "aiding the enemy," a potential death-penalty charge, so I guess they pretty much have gone there -- I guess we'll see if they can make it stick).
- I'm very dubious about your seemingly uncritical acceptance of the "blood on his hands" claims about Assange and WikiLeaks -- the underlying realities of such things aren't as straightforward as you keep trying to imply
-- and (harking back to a prior thread) I don't particularly buy the outrage about the "Collateral Murder" video that implies there was some broader context edited out that would have made everything in that video okay (there isn't).
- I can find no reference to your claims about WikiLeaks fundraising and Manning -- the WikiLeaks fundraising I'm aware of has had Manning as one among a number of priorities being fundraised for, among them a financial blockade aimed at completely shuttering the site -- and I can find nothing terribly unexpected in that interpersonal stresses should arise among the staff of an organization placed under that kind of pressure. Aside from the bail money (notice only a handful of donors have quibbled about it -- for most of them the goal was to thwart a clearly warped misuse of judicial powers) the major scandal I'm aware of WikiLeaks being connected to is that it started putting up a donation "paywall" around its content, enraging those members of "Anonymous" who may not quite understand what a "financial blockade" really is.
Basically your attempts to interpret everything and anything connected with either Assange or WikiLeaks with the maximum level of antipathy seem to me to be overwrought, and to be warping your perspective and priorities. You seem to really really want Assange to be the villain of the piece; I don't think it's likely to work out that way, though. Or if it does, it will only be for whatever span of time we decide to pretend that we can turn a blind eye to the ongoing abuse of government secrecy.
[EDIT: To bring the point across a little more fully, compare and contrast a sampling of what WikiLeaks' disclosures actually exposed
- Bipartisan American efforts to quash international torture probes.
- Attempts to hide 15,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
- Secret orders allowing US to ignore abuses including electrocution and rape by "friendly" Iraqi security forces.
- US forces opening fire on Reuters journalists.
- American pressure on Allies to shelter CIA assets from prosecution for torture and rendition.
- Deeply-compromised and directionless nature of an Afghanistan war that, like Iraq and Vietnam before it, was being presented falsely to the public.
And so on. And compared to stuff like this, I'm supposed to be impressed that oh my goodness, maybe Julian isn't a nice guy? It's pretty clear who the worse criminals are, here. At the end of the day I really don't give much of a toss about Assange's supposed foibles or the ins and outs of his sex life or office relationships. There are bigger fish to fry... and they're clearly eager to distract the citizenry from the skillet...)