Bradley Manning Prosecution Sets a Bad Precedent – NYTimes.com

James C. Goodale, who represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, is a First Amendment lawyer and author of Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.

The verdict against Pfc. Bradley Manning sets a bad precedent. Despite the triviality of many, if not most, of Mannings leaks, the government wants to lock him up indefinitely. He has already agreed to 20 years in prison. That should be enough.

The former secretary of defense Robert M. Gates characterized Mannings leaks of diplomatic cables as trivial. In fact, it is hard to see which of Mannings leaks damaged national security.

More to the point, the leaks are generally given credit for, among other things, inspiring the Arab Spring. Others exemplify classic whistle-blowing, like the video showing an Army helicopter killing two Reuters reporters.

And it should be remembered, many of the leaks were thought important enough by El Pais, Le Monde, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and The New York Times to merit prominent coverage.

Despite all of this, the government has thrown the book at Manning. It wants its message to be clear: leak at your peril, no matter how beneficial the leak may be.

That message could have a lasting and harmful effect. While Mannings case seems unique, it certainly will not be the last time digital files are leaked. The next leaker could face an equally harsh prosecution and detention.

There is still a way out of this for the government. The military judge, Col. Denise Lind, could hand down a light sentence. This would be appropriate. The government should be required to distinguish between trivial leaks and those that truly damage national security. So far, it has not, and that has already set a bad precedent.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

See the rest here:
Bradley Manning Prosecution Sets a Bad Precedent - NYTimes.com