A Bad Precedent

Guilty of espionage, but not of aiding the enemy: That was the verdict read on Tuesday to the soldier Bradley Manning, who confessed to the largest leak of secret documents in the history of the United States. The military judge in charge of the case considered Manning responsible for 20 counts, including theft and multiple lesser charges, but did not find proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the former intelligence analyst intended to supply information to the terrorist network al-Qaida when he submitted nearly 700,000 classified diplomatic and military documents to the website WikiLeaks.

The verdict seems excessive, though it could have been worse had the court not dismissed the ridiculous accusation of treason, which would have resulted in a life sentence. The number of counts on which Manning was found guilty, especially those related to his release of state secrets, could mean a sentence of over 130 years in prison.

In an attempt to intimidate and set an example, not only did the accusation blow the dust off the crime of aiding the enemy, which had not been used since the American Civil War, but it also based its strategy on the Espionage Act of 1917, which had only led to one prior conviction. Civil rights organizations were alarmed by Manning’s conviction on charges of leaking classified documents, a reaction fully justified by the consequences of this dangerous precedent on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Labeling the release and publication of secret information as treason, indiscriminately and without proof, cripples the legitimate mechanisms for controlling the administration and very seriously threatens the freedom of information.

Obama has declared an all-out war on any leaks that he believes might endanger national security. There are at least seven secrecy violation and espionage cases awaiting judgment. These matters do fall under his responsibility, but it is equally necessary for the White House to be just as thorough when staying watchful and putting a stop to the abuses and crimes committed in the name of national security. In May, Obama committed to ending the counterterrorism policy that had permitted “exceptional” acts, from detaining individuals without charge to torture to large-scale acts of espionage such as those that have recently come to light following another leak. These events cast doubt on the sincerity of his commitment.

There is an inevitable similarity to be found between Manning and Edward Snowden, the analyst who has revealed the gigantic system of planet-wide telephone and Internet surveillance. Setting aside their different profiles, it is clear that the greatest protection that a government can have against leaks is neither to threaten freedoms nor to equate whistle-blowing to espionage, but rather to follow the law and defend the essence of democracy.