“Oh aid was most definitely rendered in that he/she gave up the names of people working with us in the conflict. I’d consider that quite helpful if I were fighting the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

That may be, but there are a great many things others have done that can fall into that category. Simply operating Guantonimo Bay could be said to do that, but it’s laughable to suggest that operating GB is treason. When the supposed aid given to the enemy is simply incidental (i.e. that wasn’t the intent), is that really still treason?

“Espionage, that would be relatively easy.”

Would it? I agree that there is a case there, but let’s look at US Federal Espionage law for a moment and how the govt. defines that crime:

-“The act of obtaining, delivering, transmitting, communicating, or receiving information about the national defense with an intent, or reason to believe, that the information may be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”-

Obviously, in this case, the intent was NOT to harm the United States. Did he have a reasonable belief that it would? Well, first, Wikileaks was supposed to redact that names of informants and groups working with the US. If that was Manning’s understanding as well, it seems likely that he had a reasonable belief that steps would be taken to make sure that harm did NOT occur, and so his actions would fail to qualify as espionage. More over, if he had a reasonable belief that his actions would do more good than harm to America, I think the argument can be made that also fails to qualify as espionage. The difference between espionage and whistle-blowing in US law is found in that qualifying line in espionage law: “with an intent, or reason to believe”. With no intent or reason to believe, it does not qualify.

“You may be going a little over the tin-foil hat line claiming it was done for profit, though I’m not particularly concerned that some people just like to think the government/corporations/illuminati are their enemy.”

Oh, come on. Can we please get over this tinfo0il hat crap. War for profit isn’t some grand conspiracy that has no historical basis. You’re talking about a threat named by former US presidents here, namely Dwight Eisenhower:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes”

And then later JFK ran into issues with it:

“Shortly after Eisenhower’s address, the issue of military-industrial-congressional influence came to the forefront after Kennedy canceled the B-70 bomber on March 28, 1961. After appropriations bills had been passed and signed with B-70 funding that Kennedy would not use, the House Armed Services Committee (with 21 members having B-70 work in their districts) subsequently attempted to “direct” — by law — the Executive Branch to use “the full amount” appropriated for the B-70.” — From Wikipedia

And since you referenced the Illuminati, it helps to have historical context there as well. This isn’t some fantasy of conspiracy theorists; it was (and possibly still is) a very real organization started by Adam Weishupt in the 1700’s. It has also been referenced by respected and informed people of power, including US Presidents:

“It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.” — George Washington

The Illuminati may or may not be in existence today. Human greed and the use of war for the profit of industry, on the other hand, is as prevalent throughout history as the wars themselves….