Pfc. Bradley Manning's trial wasn't about who leaked hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic records. He admitted his responsibility, and he faces a long prison sentence.
At issue was whether Manning's actions rose to the level of aiding the enemy, an offense punishable by death.
In delivering a mixed verdict, the military judge presiding over the case struck a commendable balance between protecting national security and maintaining an informed public in a democratic society.
Manning, an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq, gave some 700,000 documents to Wikileaks, which in turn posted some of them online and shared others with news organizations in the United States and abroad. Among them were diplomatic cables, Iraq and Afghan war logs and a cockpit video showing a U.S. helicopter shooting and killing civilians, including two journalists from the British news agency Reuters.
Manning denied any desire to bring down the government, saying he wanted to "spark a debate" about U.S. foreign policy and show the "day-to-day realities" of the war in Iraq. Some of the material he leaked, such as the cockpit video, served that purpose. But he turned over so much that he couldn't have known everything that was contained in the documents.
Military prosecutors said Manning knew that al-Qaida would have access to the information and, therefore, he was guilty of aiding the enemy. The prosecutors also accused him of violating the 1917 Espionage Act, a law the Obama administration has used repeatedly in civilian courts to target those who leak classified information.
Col. Denise Lind, the military judge, acquitted Manning of aiding the enemy and convicted him of several violations of the Espionage Act. He faces up to 136 years in prison.
Manning's supporters say he should be freed. He's been compared to Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, a secret history that exposed government lies and helped change public views of the Vietnam War. But Ellsberg also was arrested and stood trial, though his case was dismissed because of government misconduct uncovered during Watergate.
Whistle-blowers serve an important role in our democratic society, but there are risks involved, including arrest and prosecution. Or, as Edward Snowden is learning, exile.
There also is risk in overzealous pursuit of whistle-blowers.
Prosecutors presented no evidence that Manning harmed national security, or intended to do so. Had they secured a conviction for a capital crime without doing so, it would have sent an intimidating message to anyone thinking of exposing government misconduct.
That may be the aim of the Obama administration, which has filed more Espionage Act cases than any of its predecessors while classifying millions of documents every year. It also has aggressively targeted news organizations, naming a reporter as a co-conspirator in a leak case and trying to compel a reporter to reveal confidential sources in another.
It's time to refocus. Manning wasn't a traitor or a spy. Prosecutors should accept a moderate sentence, and the government should rethink what it classifies — and who is given access to secrets.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: