FORT MEADE, Md. – An Army judge Tuesday acquitted Pfc. Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy by disclosing a trove of secret U.S. government documents but found him guilty of espionage.
The mixed verdict dealt a rebuke to military prosecutors who sought to prove that the largest leak in U.S. history had assisted al-Qaida.
The judge, Col. Denise Lind, found Manning guilty of most of the more than 20 crimes he was charged with, including several violations of the Espionage Act. He could face a maximum of 136 years in prison.
The case, tried in a small courtroom at Fort Meade, Md., an installation that includes the National Security Agency, unfolded amid a heated national conversation about the right balance between government secrecy and civil liberties – a debate fueled by recent revelations about the scope of U.S. surveillance programs.
In charging Manning with aiding the enemy, government prosecutors argued that the former intelligence analyst’s decision to release diplomatic cables and battlefield reports amounted to the highest form of treason.
Lind did not buy that argument. But her verdict, which marked the first major espionage conviction during the Obama administration, is certain to set markers in the ongoing debate over government secrecy and whistleblower protections.
Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, said he was pleased by the verdict, but he signaled that the decisive moment will come during the sentencing phase of the court-martial, which opens today and could last several weeks.
“We won the battle, now we need to go win the war,” Coombs said after leaving court. “Today is a good day, but Bradley is by no means out of the fire.”
Lind also acquitted Manning, 25, of one count of violating the Espionage Act that stemmed from his leak of a video that depicted a fatal U.S. military airstrike in Farah province, Afghanistan.
The eight-week trial at Fort Meade offered a gripping account of Manning’s transformation after he deployed to Iraq in 2009. Prosecutors asserted that, after being startled by what he came to see as egregious U.S. wartime misconduct, Manning became a mole for the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, using his access to classified information to collect more than 700,000 documents that ultimately became public. They ranged from sensitive detainee assessments to diplomatic dispatches that embarrassed their authors and angered their subjects.
Had Manning been convicted of aiding the enemy, he would have faced a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prosecutors were relying on a Civil War-era conviction to bolster their case. They argued that Manning should have known that terrorist organizations would have an interest in, and potentially benefit from, the disclosures.
Lind made no substantive remarks as she delivered the verdict, and Manning showed no reaction as she did so. A gaggle of Manning supporters who have been following his case assiduously expressed partial relief at the outcome.
The case also put a spotlight on the military justice system, which is less transparent than civilian courts and has fueled critics who say it is ill-equipped to deal with the sexual-assault epidemic.
Before sentencing him, Lind will spend weeks hearing from defense and prosecution witnesses. The government is expected to provide a classified assessment of the damage created by Manning’s disclosures.