The Chelsea Manning Court-Martial: The Largest Leak in U.S. History

Published Read 6 min read

On this page

Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning, gave WikiLeaks more than 700,000 battlefield reports and State Department cables in 2010 while serving in Iraq. The Associated Press, reporting her sentence on August 21, 2013, called it “the largest such leak in the country’s history.” Before trial she pleaded guilty to some specifications. The government then tried the rest before the military judge, Colonel Denise Lind, at Fort Meade, Maryland. Lind acquitted Manning of aiding the enemy, the most serious charge, and convicted her of 20 offenses, including six Espionage Act violations. The sentence was 35 years. In January 2017, President Barack Obama commuted the sentence to expire on May 17, 2017. The case separates two crimes that can rest on the same act of disclosure. One requires proof that the accused knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy. The other requires only that national defense information went to someone not entitled to receive it.

The Manning Record in Brief

Item Record
Accused Pfc. Bradley Manning, now Chelsea Manning, Army intelligence analyst in Iraq
Disclosure More than 700,000 battlefield reports and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, 2010
Pleas Guilty to several specifications of violating lawful general orders before the contested trial
Forum Military judge alone, Col. Denise Lind, Fort Meade, Maryland
Findings (July 30, 2013) Not guilty of aiding the enemy; guilty of 20 offenses, including six Espionage Act violations, five theft counts, and computer fraud
Maximum faced at sentencing Up to 90 years, as reported by AP
Sentence (Aug. 21, 2013) 35 years, reduction in rank, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay
Pretrial credit About three and a half years, including 112 days for illegal pretrial punishment at a Marine Corps brig
Convening authority (Apr. 2014) Maj. Gen. Jeffery S. Buchanan approved the findings and sentence
Commutation (Jan. 17, 2017) Sentence shortened to expire May 17, 2017

A Mixed Plea

Manning did not contest the disclosures themselves. Lawfare’s primer on the verdict, written on the day of the findings, explained that she “entered a guilty plea to several specifications of violating lawful general orders”, which carried up to 20 years. “The Court accepted Manning’s pleas of guilty, but the government chose to go forward with the remaining charges.” The Manual’s term is “mixed pleas”: guilty to some charges, contested on others. The accused admits what she cannot dispute and leaves the government to prove the theories she does contest.

Aiding the Enemy: What the Government Had to Prove

The most serious charge was aiding the enemy under Article 104, now Article 103b. The Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.), Part IV, paragraph 33, sets out the elements of giving intelligence to the enemy: the accused, “without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy”, and the information “was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.”

The Manual allows that “This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.” That was the government’s route. Prosecutors argued that Manning “indiscriminately leaked information she had sworn to protect, knowing it would be seen by al-Qaida”, MPR News reported. The Manual’s knowledge requirement is strict: “Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.”

Lind found Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy. According to the AP report carried by Global News, “Prosecutors were unable to prove that he aided the enemy, a crime punishable by life in prison.” The sources here do not quote the judge’s reasoning on that count. What the elements show is the gap the government had to close: proof that Manning actually knew she was giving intelligence to the enemy, not only that an enemy could read what WikiLeaks published.

The Espionage Act: A Different Question

The Espionage Act counts asked something else. 18 U.S.C. 793 reaches a person with possession of or access to national defense information who “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits” it “to any person not entitled to receive it”. For information, as distinct from a document, the statute adds that the possessor “has reason to believe” it “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”. The statute’s recipient is any unauthorized person, not the enemy. Disclosure to WikiLeaks satisfied that element in a way it did not satisfy the knowledge element of aiding the enemy.

Charge Who must receive the information What the accused must know Result
Aiding the enemy, giving intelligence (Art. 104, now 103b) The enemy, directly or indirectly Actual knowledge of giving intelligence to the enemy Not guilty
Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793 Any person not entitled to receive it Willful communication of national defense information Guilty, six violations

The same act of downloading and sending files carried both theories. The difference in outcome came from the elements, not from the volume of material.

The Sentence

AP reported that “Manning had faced up to 90 years in prison. Prosecutors had wanted at least a 60-year sentence”. The judge imposed 35 years and “didn’t offer any explanation for the sentence.” Manning received credit for about three and a half years of pretrial confinement, “including 112 days for being illegally punished by harsh conditions at a Marine Corps brig.” Her lawyers had said she was held alone “for at least 23 hours a day”. AP also reported that prosecutors “did not present any evidence in open court that anyone was physically harmed as a direct result of Manning’s actions”.

Prosecutors had sought a far longer term than other soldiers had received in recent decades for sharing government secrets, the same report noted. It cited Albert Sombolay, who received 34 years in 1991 for giving information to a Jordanian intelligence agent, and Clayton Lonetree, who received 30 years, later reduced to 15, for giving the KGB information. Both of those cases involved a foreign recipient. Manning’s did not.

Approval and Commutation

In April 2014, MPR reported, Major General Jeffery S. Buchanan, commander of the Military District of Washington, approved the conviction and the 35-year sentence. That approval “clears the way for an automatic appeal of the case to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals”. By then Manning had announced, after sentencing, that she would live as a woman named Chelsea.

On January 17, 2017, NPR reported, President Obama commuted the sentence. “The former intelligence analyst’s prison sentence has been shortened to expire on May 17, 2017, according to a statement from the White House.” A commutation shortens a sentence; it is not a pardon of the conviction. Senator John McCain called it a “grave mistake”.

The Recipient Decided the Crime

The size of a leak does not decide which crime was committed. Aiding the enemy requires proof that the accused knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy. Publication to the world, which an enemy can read, did not supply that proof here. The Espionage Act does not require an enemy recipient. It requires a willful communication of material relating to the national defense to someone not entitled to receive it, with an added reason-to-believe element for intangible information, and the military judge convicted on six such specifications. A mixed plea let Manning admit the conduct she could not contest while making the government prove the theories she did. And the President’s commutation power, which sits outside the court-martial system, ended the confinement while the conviction remained.

Sources

This case study describes a public court-martial record and contemporaneous reporting. It is educational information, not legal advice.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *