The case that began with a video of an airstrike ended in a military courtroom in Maryland. A judge read out a sentence of 35 years, longer than anything ever handed down in the United States for giving information to the press.
What she was charged with
The government brought more than twenty charges. Three groups matter.
- Aiding the enemy. The gravest count, carrying a potential life sentence. The theory was that publishing material on the internet placed it where hostile groups could read it.
- Espionage Act offences. Multiple counts covering the obtaining and transmission of national defence information.
- Theft and computer offences, plus military charges relating to failure to obey regulations.
She had already pleaded guilty to a set of lesser offences that would have carried around twenty years. The government went to trial on the rest anyway.
The charge that worried everyone
Aiding the enemy was the count press-freedom organisations watched most closely, and not because of Manning. If giving information to a publisher could amount to aiding the enemy simply because enemies can read published material, then in principle any source who talks to any journalist about anything sensitive is exposed to the same theory.
The judge acquitted her on that count in July 2013. It was the single most consequential ruling of the trial, and it got a fraction of the coverage the sentence did. Why that mattered beyond this case is worth reading.
The verdict
On 30 July 2013 she was convicted on most of the remaining counts, including several Espionage Act offences.
| Charge | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Aiding the enemy | Acquitted |
| Espionage Act counts | Convicted on multiple counts |
| Theft of government records | Convicted |
| Computer fraud counts | Convicted in part |
| Military regulation offences | Convicted |
The defence that was not available
Here is the part most people find surprising. Under the Espionage Act, a defendant essentially cannot argue that a disclosure served the public interest. Motive is not a defence. Whether the material revealed wrongdoing is not a defence. Whether anyone was actually harmed is, at most, relevant to sentencing.
The practical effect
Once it is established that a person knowingly passed protected national defence information to someone not entitled to receive it, the question of why has almost nowhere to go. That is why arguments about whistleblowing tend to happen outside the courtroom: there is no room for them inside it.
The defence did what it could, arguing about her state of mind, the pressure she was under, her treatment in custody and the limited actual harm the government could demonstrate.
The sentence
On 21 August 2013 she was sentenced to 35 years, with credit for time served and for the conditions of her early confinement, which the judge accepted had been unlawfully harsh. A United Nations rapporteur had earlier described that first year as cruel and inhuman.
The prosecution had asked for 60. The figure that landed was still far beyond anything comparable: leak cases in the United States had historically produced sentences measured in months or a few years.
How far outside the norm that number was
Leak cases in the United States had historically produced sentences measured in months, or a very few years. The prosecution asked for sixty. Thirty-five years remains the longest ever imposed in the United States for a leak to the press.
The trial almost nobody could watch
The proceedings themselves were unusually hard to follow. There was no official transcript released as the trial went along, no cameras, and limited seating. For long stretches the public record of the most significant leak trial in modern American history consisted of notes typed by a handful of reporters and volunteers sitting in the room.
Parts of the trial were closed entirely, on the basis that classified material was being discussed. That is normal in such cases and it has an obvious consequence: the arguments about whether the disclosures caused real harm, which were the arguments most relevant to sentencing, were partly made where nobody outside could hear them.
What a sentence like that is actually for
Deterrence, mostly. The government argued openly that the scale of the disclosure demanded a sentence that would discourage anyone else from attempting anything similar.
Whether it worked is arguable. The years after 2013 saw more leak prosecutions, not fewer, and also saw newsrooms build the secure submission systems that made leaking easier. What is not arguable is the contrast the sentence created, and it is the contrast that has defined how this case is remembered: thirty-five years for the person who made the footage public, and no charge at all for anything inside it. Three and a half years later, most of that sentence was cancelled with a signature. That is the next page.
The material at the centre of the trial is described in the main account, and the ethical argument the court was not allowed to hear is set out in the page on leaking.
Questions people ask about this
Was Manning tried by a jury?
What was she acquitted of?
Why could she not argue public interest?
Where this comes from
- Federal and military court records — CourtListener
- Freedom of the Press Foundation — Freedom of the Press Foundation
- Amnesty International case reporting — Amnesty International
Spotted something wrong? Tell us and we will fix it.
