The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times:
Prosecutors must prove that Pfc. Bradley Manning "had reason to believe" that the classified material he provided to WikiLeaks would harm the nation, a military judge ruled last Wednesday — offering the Pentagon an opportunity to bring an end to a prosecution that has become an exercise in overkill.
Manning, the 25-year-old former intelligence analyst in Iraq, pleaded guilty in February to 10 charges, including possessing classified information and transferring it to an unauthorized person. The plea alone could subject him to 20 years in prison, but the government wasn't satisfied. It continues to charge him with multiple violations of the Espionage Act. Conviction could put him in prison for life.
To Manning's supporters, he is a valiant whistle-blower; they cite the video of a 2007 helicopter attack that killed 12 civilians in Baghdad that Manning provided to WikiLeaks.
Even if Manning was engaged in principled civil disobedience, he must face the consequences that await anyone who violates the law in a supposedly higher cause. But the current charges against him go too far.
In arguing that Manning aided the enemy, the government's case apparently will rest on the assertion that some WikiLeaks material made its way to a digital device found in the possession of Osama bin Laden. By the government's logic, the New York Times could be accused of aiding the enemy if bin Laden possessed a copy of a newspaper that included WikiLeaks material.
Whether the judge's ruling would make conviction of Manning significantly harder isn't clear. But it could make it easier for the government to announce that pursuing the additional charges wouldn't be productive — a graceful exit that would still leave Manning facing considerable time in prison.