Misconduct by the U.S., perceived or real, does not cancel out the harm done by Manning's leaks. He just piled extra suffering and death on top of the old. Given the conditions that led up to the war in Afghanistan, no amount of leaks could have prevented it. I will concede that particular well-timed leaks might have prevented the Iraq war. However, this is not several years ago, this is now: war is not a state function, you can't just rewind it, you have to find a path out based on the realities of the moment. Right now, the reality is that if we unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, the death and suffering that will follow will be far worse than what is currently happening. The impact of these leaks, if anything, was to destabilize the situation, thus moving us farther from a peaceful resolution.

The issue of confinement is not just about what happened previously, but about what could happen in the future. He doesn't have to have a hidden thumb drive or a photographic memory to cause a great deal more harm: a few carefully chosen secrets committed to memory could put many lives in jeopardy. Only he knows if he has such secrets, and we can't trust his word if he says he doesn't, any more than we could trust the word of a violent inmate who promises to be good from now on.

"The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights."

Watch the FULL video: it shows no such thing. It shows a couple of professionals following the rules of engagement to the best of their abilities in a very chaotic and uncertain situation that involved their comrades getting shot at. I do not feel sorry for them at all, except that they had to be the subject of a heavily edited propaganda film.

EDIT:
Since I can't reply any deeper, I'll respond to the latest to replies here.

I didn't claim that wikileaks didn't release the full version: I presumed that parent didn't watch it, based on his characterization of the events. I'll add this: the heavily-edited version got a hell of a lot more attention, and it was indisputably a work of propaganda. Releasing the full video on the side doesn't excuse the misrepresentations in the edited version.

In regards to the death and/or suffering I presume to have been caused by these leaks: no I can't prove it. I can't sweep into a war-torn third world country with a CSI-style team and determine, of the dozens of people abducted and/or murdered each weak by the taliban and/or al qaida and/or various warlords, which were killed as a result of these leaks and which were killed for other reasons. However, I can take those thugs at their word when they stated that they would use this information for reprisals.
Nor can I be sure which particular ambushes against NATO troops benefited from knowledge of NATO tactics. Nor can I be sure how many ambushes could have been avoided if sympathetic Afghanis hadn't been too afraid to give tips because they could no longer trust the Americans to protect their identities. However, it is unreasonable to assume that these effects are not taking place.

EDIT 2:
"The Apache video was edited to show the chain of events that led to the killing of a bunch of journalists...but I don't believe permission to fire would have been granted if the guys in the helicopter hadn't been so scared and hadn't embellished their account of the people on the ground."

The video was edited to make them look rash and to make their account look embellished. And I really don't know where you keep getting this idea of "scared;" I never hear anything remotely like fear in the voices on the tape. It wasn't just a "bunch of journalists," it was a few journalists standing around in the midst of a much larger group of armed men who were shooting at American troops, with no indication whatsoever that they were not members of the larger group.

I call it propaganda because it leaves out the part about the armed men shooting at Americans and focuses on the part about journalists being killed. I call it propaganda because it leaves out the very considered discussion of the role of the van, which stretches back to before the initial engagement when the pilots noticed it driving around the area in a loiter pattern reminiscent of insurgent support tactics. In short, I call it propaganda because it removes all context in order to make the decision to fire look as feckless and cavalier as possible.

"As for the leaked information putting lives at risk, Wikileaks offered to let the US Government redact any information it saw fit to. This offer was refused."

Frankly, I call BS. Their "offer" had unacceptable strings attached, such as acknowledging the legitimacy of the release of large quantities of classified materials by wikileaks. By statute, the government can't just arbitrarily decide to declare that it's OK to do something like that. Furthermore, sufficient time was not provided to properly go through all of the materials, a complaint raised by many (former) wikileaks partners/employees/volunteers. Finally, I am deeply skeptical that they really would have redacted ANYTHING the U.S. Government asked for.

In regards to your attempt to compare the U.S. to dictatorships: There are legitimate reasons for states to keep secrets, and the fact that you happen to personally disagree with particular secrets doesn't change the fact that the decision to keep those secrets was not made by any one person, but rather by following processes established by duly elected representatives.

On the day that the U.S. turns a foreign country into another U.S. state by force of arms, I will mail you a check for $100. Until then, please don't make such ridiculous claims about the motivations behind our foreign policy: go ahead and question the judgement to keep the troops there, but don't claim implausible imperial motivations.