A military judge has acquitted former US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning of the most serious charge against him, aiding the enemy, but convicted him of espionage, theft and computer fraud charges for giving thousands of classified secrets to the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks.
He faces up to 136 years in prison.
The judge deliberated for about 16 hours over three days before reaching her decision in a case that drew worldwide attention. Supporters have hailed the 25-year-old Manning as a whistleblower. The US government has called him an anarchist computer hacker and attention-seeking traitor.
The WikiLeaks case is by far the biggest release of classified material in US history. Manning’s supporters included Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, who in the early 1970s spilled a secret Defence Department history of US involvement in Vietnam that showed that the government repeatedly misled the public about the war.
Manning’s sentencing begins tomorrow. He was convicted on 19 of 21 charges, and he previously pleaded guilty to a charge involving an Icelandic cable. The charge of aiding the enemy had carried a potential life sentence.
On its official Twitter account, WikiLeaks blasted the verdict and the Obama administration, calling it “dangerous national security extremism.”
Manning stood at attention as the judge read the verdicts. He appeared not to react, though his lawyer, David Coombs, smiled faintly when he heard not guilty on aiding the enemy. When the judge was done, Mr Coombs put his hand on Manning’s back and whispered something to him, bringing a slight smile to the soldier’s face.
“We won the battle, now we need to go win the war,” Mr Coombs, outside court, said of the sentencing phase. “Today is a good day, but Bradley is by no means out of the fire.”
Manning’s trial was unusual because he acknowledged giving WikiLeaks more than 700,000 battlefield reports and diplomatic cables, plus video of a 2007 US helicopter attack that killed civilians in Iraq and a Reuters news photographer and his driver. In the footage, airmen laughed and called targets “dead bastards.”
Manning has said he leaked the material to expose the US military’s “bloodlust” and disregard for human life, and what he considered American diplomatic deceit. He said he chose information he believed would not the harm the United States, and he wanted to start a debate on military and foreign policy. He did not testify at his trial.
Manning pleaded guilty earlier this year to lesser offences that could have brought him 20 years behind bars, yet the government continued to pursue the original, more serious charges. Besides the aiding the enemy acquittal, Manning was also found not guilty today of an espionage charge when the judge found prosecutors had not proved their assertion he started giving material to WikiLeaks in late 2009. Manning said he started the leaks in February the following year.
Mr Coombs portrayed Manning as a “young, naive but good-intentioned” soldier who was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay service member at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the US military.
Mr Coombs said Manning could have sold the information or given it directly to the enemy, but he gave them to WikiLeaks in an attempt to “spark reform” and provoke debate. A counterintelligence witness valued the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs at about 5.7 million dollars (£3.7m), based on what foreign intelligence services had paid in the past for similar information.
Mr Coombs said Manning had no way of knowing whether al Qaida would access the secret-spilling website, and a 2008 counterintelligence report showed the government itself didn’t know much about the site.
The lead prosecutor, Maj. Ashden Fein, said Manning knew the material would be seen by al Qaida, a key point prosecutor needed to prove to get an aiding the enemy conviction. Even Osama bin Laden had some of the digital files at his compound in Pakistan when he was killed.
Manning’s supporters believed a conviction for aiding the enemy would have a chilling effect on leakers who want to expose wrongdoing by giving information to websites and the media. The Defence Department has made it harder for one person acting alone to download material from a classified network and place it on an unclassified one.
US officials warned of dire consequences in the days immediately after the first WikiLeaks disclosures in July 2010, but a Pentagon assessment determined in August 2010 that the leaks had not compromised intelligence sources or practices, although it said the disclosures could still cause significant damage to US security interests.
The Manning trial unfolded as another low-level intelligence worker, Edward Snowden, revealed US secrets about surveillance programmes. Snowden, a civilian employee, has told The Guardian newspaper his motives were similar to Manning’s, but he said his leaks were more selective.
Before Snowden, Manning’s case was the most high-profile espionage prosecution for the Obama administration, which has been criticised for its crackdown on leakers. The espionage cases brought since Mr Obama took office are more than in all other presidencies combined.
The material WikiLeaks began publishing in 2010 documented complaints of abuses against Iraqi detainees, a US tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and America’s weak support for the government of Tunisia – a disclosure that Manning supporters said helped trigger the Middle Eastern pro-democracy uprisings known as the Arab Spring.
The Obama administration said the release threatened to expose valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America’s relations with other governments.
Prosecutors said during the trial Manning relied on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange for guidance on what secrets to “harvest” for the organization, starting within weeks of his arrival in Iraq in late 2009.
Federal authorities are looking into whether Mr Assange can be prosecuted. He has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden on sex-crimes allegations.