A statute designed to incapacitate dangerous spies would become available to imprison for decades people who intended no harm to the country, who have done no harm to the country, and who had little reason to think such harm would occur. If the judge gives undue weight to the documents’ classified status, the result-combined with her other rulings-could be far-reaching. Manning’s disclosures, for example, included a cable in which a State Department official classified the fact that weddings in Russia’s Dagestan province take place over three days. Officials have acknowledged for decades that “overclassification” is rampant in the federal government. But prosecutors are likely to rely heavily on the fact that the leaked documents were classified. What constitutes “reason to believe” that a disclosure will harm national security? There is no settled answer. She also ruled that it made no difference whether the disclosures actually caused harm. The judge in Manning’s case has taken the same view, ruling that Manning’s motive is irrelevant. Instead, the government had to show only that Kiriakou had “reason to believe” the disclosures could injure the U.S. waterboarding of detainees, the judge sided with the Obama administration, rejecting the “bad faith” requirement. In the Espionage Act prosecution of John Kiriakou, the CIA officer who disclosed details about the U.S.
Indeed, most of the defendants were attempting to serve their country by exposing government wrongdoing or providing information that could enrich public debate. In none of these cases, including Manning’s, was there any suggestion that the leaker intended harm.
It has brought six prosecutions against officials and contractors for leaking information to the media-twice as many as all previous administrations combined. In 2006, a federal judge ruled that the provision of the Act at issue in Manning’s case applies only to people who act in “bad faith”-those who intend to harm the country.īut the Obama administration has taken a very different view. As its name implies, the law, enacted in 1917, was intended to punish spies, traitors, and other enemies of the state. But it is almost sure to deter some well-meaning officials from exposing government misdeeds and to cause the press to think twice about reporting them.Īt the center of the case is the government’s allegation that Manning violated the Espionage Act by disclosing classified documents to WikiLeaks. It remains to be seen whether the government’s aggressive approach, in this and other leak cases, succeeds in deterring people who are bent on injuring the nation. They seek to convict him on additional Espionage Act and other charges, and to send him to jail for life. Instead, in the court martial that began Monday, prosecutors are reaching for more. You might think the government would be satisfied that Bradley Manning, the source of hundreds of thousands of classified documents published by WikiLeaks, has entered a guilty plea that could put him away for 20 years. This column was written by Faiza Patel and Elizabeth Goitein, who co-direct the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for Justice.