"You can write me off by stating that if only Obama vetoed his alleged crime then Manning would be a free man, but I think that you would do a great disservice to your understanding of this issue if you reduce it to such simple terms." --Actually, you are referring to my reference to Obama's handling of the NDAA. I don't think he has the power to veto the holding of Bradley Manning as it was not brought to congress; however, he still has the power of voice.

"The president is obviously not going to let a man go who is responsible for what many americans consider to be treason, and with a conservative base that is a volatile as it is about anything that he does when he is merely going about daily business in the white house, I don't think it would be a very good move from where Obama is sitting right now." --Something being viable for campaigning does not make it a legitimate action in light of human rights infringement. Again, this justifies his actions as something "necessary".

Reading more of your post, I can only conclude that you are an apologist for the U.S. government. Considering our (I'm assuming) government's (and indirectly our) actions over the past 50 or so years, I feel that this is a terrible position to hold.

"But there is a limit to how much you can fight against that system, and I believe that possibly endangering the lives of military personnel, who have little say in the evil deeds of the government, in order to further your agenda of freedom of information is where one has to draw the line." --So the strategy is to keep Obama in office so he can fix it in his next term? You lost me. Additionally, the valence and responsibility of "endangering the lives of military personnel" is extremely dispersed throughout military command and political power in the US.