Bradley Manning’s case is about more than freedom of speech

newstatesman.com

Yes, the US gets away with human rights atrocities, and yes, Manning should not be tortured. However, one can't ignore the fact that he released US government secrets to a non-government entity. That is treason. Manning will receive some sort of punishment because he committed treason, and treason is breaking the law. It's fairly simple.

> he released US government secrets to a non-government entity. That is treason.

That's not what treason is in the USA. Treason is defined in the US Constitution as such:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

As bradhe stated, it falls under giving aid to enemies.

> giving them Aid

Aiding the enemy is a separate offense than treason, and a less serious one. Bradley Manning is actually being charged with aiding the enemy, but is not being charged with treason.

Ah, so your argument is a semantic one.

Well, yes, it's obviously a semantic argument. I'm arguing about what "treason" means.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com