Chelsea Manning had no shortage of supporters after receiving a 35-year prison sentence for violating the controversial Espionage Act. While it is doubtful that many of the people fighting for her pardon have actually read the 700,000 documents released to Wiki Leaks, many Americans feel strongly that the public has the right to know about the embarrassments and failures of the military. According to executive privilege, however, the president is allowed to keep his or her secrets, just like anyone else.
Free speech is not unlimited — true threats and soliciting murder are punishable charges. This makes certain crimes, such as revealing undercover police stationed in dangerous situations, and even the doings of Edward Snowden, who leaked information such as a secret about a UK base in the Middle East, more understandable threats. The next natural question to ask, of course, is where to draw the line.
Manning’s act can’t be ignored. Had she sat down and performed an interview, the First Amendment would have  a much stronger argument. However, she released documents that belonged to the government, violating any secrecy agreements made.
It is a third degree felony to obtain confidential information through hacking, and even having permission to view the documents would not have allowed her to show the documents to others. Laws are nothing more than an agreement of terms between the government and its citizens, so breaking her agreement to keep certain information secret should justify the agreed-upon consequences.
The real controversy is the intensity of the punishment. The Espionage Act allows the government to silence free speech when there is clear and present danger, but sections have been revised and repealed many times after its enactment and can easily be altered again. At this point, set laws and rulings have become secondary to the court’s subjective opinion at the time, and the term “national security” makes this possible.
“National security” and “state of emergency” are terms the government can use to bypass the slow and frustrating system of checks and balances in the U.S. President Abraham Lincoln used emergency powers to suspend habeas corpus, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to establish military areas and Congress to pass the Patriot Act.
After Congress allowed us to declare a war on terror, these wartime antics and emergency powers could potentially be claimed by the government anytime it appears beneficial. There were 700,000 documents leaked, and while they may mean nothing to an American citizen, any of them could be claimed to be aiding some national enemy or other in the war against terror.
Manning is being sentenced 35 years in prison. According to Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, this is the kind of sentence one would see given to a hired spy. At this point, the leak hasn’t caused any apparent direct threats to the lives of Americans, but it has caused the U.S. and allies countless embarrassments and headaches.
The government has plenty of motive to make an example of Manning in order to prevent further messes as well as the ability to do it. Charging Manning with a minimal sentence for sharing documents without permission would surely have created a less intense public backlash than the controversial ruling of espionage using the magic term “national security.”
The U.S. government ruled on this case within the law, and it didn’t overstep its bounds. Without caution, however, the next discussion might be whether or not it has any.