Only one, George Walker Bush, like Cheney and a good majority of their staff, can not travel freely throughout the free world as their are either wanted for trial or have been found guilty in absentia of crimes related to the war and torture.

They should have tried them for at the very least lying us into a war and for committing the same acts we tried Japanese soldiers for, waterboarding.

That being said, Obama should be tried for authorizing and killing of innocent people in lands we are not engaged in war with.  The drone program is as bad, if not worse than torture.  And Obama is authorizing the killing of Americans and other nationals.

Ditto for the people behind PRISM and every single lawyer for both Presidents who devised memos to make what is clearly a crime, not a crime.  Layers don't judge laws, they interpret them and should be judged on whether those interpretations are valid by a judge/jury.  No one has ever contested their findings which are/have enable crimianls to commit obvious crimes.

History is no excuse for not holding every person in American to the rule of law, that is one of the foundations of this country, people with great rank are as liable to prosecution as any of us.  

The older I get, the more inclined I am to view the wrongs of past presidents in our country in a historical context.  Perhaps, that is what you are suggesting.  When Nixon resigned, I was furious that his deceitful actions didn't guarantee a one way trip to prison rather than a pardon.  After the Bush-Cheney era, the old fury returned because of the many, many thousands killed and/or maimed by that insidious Iraq war. Yet, somehow I turned to the future ... I turned to the future because, in the context of a country as well as the context of history, it didn't make sense to spend the years and human and monetary treasure to forego the necessary moving forward for countrywide retribution.  The key thing to follow countrywide blunders -- unless it reaches the murderous intent seen in genocides, holocausts, and other "shocking the conscience" events -- is that lessons are learned & historically recorded ... to help us all as a people in future.

The law passed by the Continental Congress on July 30, 1778, declared that it was the "duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other the inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by an officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge."

It was passed unanimously in response to a whistleblower, Marine Captain John Grannis, who presented a petition to the Continental Congress on March 26, 1777, to have a commander of the Continental Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins, suspended after he tortured British sailors who were captured.

No, Manning didn't go to Congress, and

Manning does not dispute that he committed violations of the military code of justice, which he swore an oath to obey. He pled guilty to some offenses before trial, and, had the prosecutors accepted this plea instead of going forward with the entire case to convict him of "aiding the enemy," the government could have put him in jail for twenty years. It was apparently not good enough. They wanted to convict him of all the federal offenses he faced--the Espionage Act charges, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) charges and the embezzlement of government property charges.

Military prosecutors also wanted to convict him of "aiding the enemy" for releasing information. They convinced the military judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, prior to trial to interpret the charge without a specific intent requirement. All the government would have to prove is that Manning had knowledge his disclosures would "aid the enemy."

During the trial, Manning's civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, argued, "No case has ever been prosecuted under this type of theory, that an individual by the nature of giving information to a journalistic organization would then" be charged with "aiding the enemy."

What are some of the things we learned?

Take the video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack, which shows two Reuters journalists being gunned down in Baghdad. The soldiers in the video known as "Collateral Murder" feature soldiers begging superior officers to give them orders to fire on individuals, who are rescuing wounded people. Soldiers also openly hoped a wounded man crawling on the sidewalk would pick up something resembling a weapon so they could finish him off. And, "The most alarming aspect of the video," as Manning said, is "the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have."

Consider the military incident reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, which he thought "represented the on the ground reality of both of the conflicts" the US was waging in those countries. In Afghanistan, the reports obtained by WikiLeaks and released as the "Afghan War Logs" showed an assassination squad, Task Force 373, was operating. It kept classified lists of enemies and went on a mission on June 17, 2007, to target "prominent al Qaeda functionary Abu Laith al-Libi." The squad staked out a "Koran school where he was believed to be located for several days." An attack was ordered. The squad ended up killing seven children with five American rockets. Al-Libi was not killed.

Reports from Iraq, also obtained by WikiLeaks and released as the "Iraq War Logs," revealed an order, Frago 242, which the US and the UK appeared to have adopted as a way of excusing them from having to take responsibility for torture or ill-treatment of Iraqis by Iraqi military or security forces. The reports also showed US interrogators had threatened Iraqi detainees with the prospect of being turned over to the "Wolf Brigade" or "Wolf Battalion," which would "subject" them "to all the pain and agony that the Wolf Battalion is known to exact upon its detainees."

Link

I think the whole thing is a travesty, and I think if more people were aware of not just what Manning - and others before and after him - has made possible for us to know, but how judges, both military and civilian, have ruled in ways that have made it easier to prosecute and convict "leakers," they would be as appalled as we are.