I don't understand the subcontext of your rhetorical question. Could you explain why this would be a problem?
Is it really that difficult to understand the subtext here?
Beyond that, I was answering a question about subtext, not discussing the article directly.
Your argument would still "apply" if Chelsea had cheated on a lover; "hey, she betrayed someone's trust so how can she talk about trust?" Basically, nothing's she's done invalidates or even weakens her points.
"Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
Which is "mishandled."
In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.
Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics.
She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.
I personally don't believe that saying one side followed all the rules when they have the power to make the rules has any weight as a moral argument
Chelsea Manning made us aware of it by leaking documents I deem to be in the public interest.
Between the US military and Chelsea Manning, guess who I trust more?