This is the mark of a viewpoint unfettered by exposure to the other side. Assuming malicious intent of someone just because they have an opposing viewpoint is simplistic and naive.
1. Manning leaks: exposure of one war crime and its coverup. Hardly a trend. Furthermore, Wikileaks edited the Collateral Murder video to imply malicious intent and obfuscate the ambiguity in the situation.
2. Snowden leaks: where was the U.S. military implicated in any of them?
3. Hospital bombings: yes, targeting fails happen in wartime. It is tragic and regretful. War zones are dangerous.
4. Senate report on torture: wasn't that the CIA as directed by Attorney General Gonzalez?
5. Obama refusal to exercise the laws against torture: this is the first time I'm hearing of this, please discuss.
6. Gitmo: hardly the U.S. military; this is an artifact of a Congress that refuses to allow any appropriations toward relocating prisoners elsewhere.
7. Kill lists: how would you approach terminating military commanders engaging in continuous operations (that kill noncombatants) against your country, yet they don't belong to a nation-state?
In the last 100 years, the U.S. military is guilty of much wrongdoing. Compared to other nations, and considering the volume of combat in which the U.S. military has been engaged, the U.S. military fares well when compared to other nations. The reality is that warfare inherently involves the killing of people who should not have been killed, simply because their homes were in a combat zone. You could argue that the U.S. shouldn't have entered most of its wars; that might be true. At the time, it was considered to be the right thing by the U.S. electorate in order to prevent much more bloodshed. World War 2 is the textbook example of a war entered too late to prevent massive bloodshed. This informs U.S. decision makers and cannot be discounted.