"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."

Even in the modern political climate, it's going to be hard for the prosecution to demonstrate that Wikileaks constitutes an enemy of the United States.

The Founding Fathers were traitors so it is not exactly a surprise that it is hard to convict someone of treason in the US.

More accurately, they'd seen people charged and convicted of treason for nothing more than criticizing the government.

This definition wouldn't have exempted them.

Still, it’s a nice illustration that treacherous behavior is not inherently immoral. I think you can generalize that to “Illegal behavior is not inherently immoral.”

This discussion is making me uncomfortable, though. Besides not really being HN material, I really in no way intended to compare Manning to the Founding Fathers. That would be ridiculous. I don’t think what he did was heroic, I think it was mostly stupid, probably immoral.

But I cannot understand that hunger for blood (I have never been able to understand that, no matter the crime). Locking him up for a few years (in a normal prison) and destroying his career will be pretty certain to discourage anyone who could be discouraged (those willing to violate the law in general don’t expect to be caught). Why punish someone without any positive effect, just for punishment’s sake? That’s what I don’t get.

Suppose that the American public only supported the wars because it believed some of the lies that the cables revealed to be false.

If that were the case, then all the collateral damage caused by the wars happened against the will of the American people while at the same time it was done in the name of the American people.

So if Manning believed that to be the case, then he acted heroically. If you don't believe that to be the case, then it's reasonable that you don't consider his actions heroic.

I suppose that if the sort of leak Manning did isn't a good reason to risk life in prison, nothing is.

I understand your point, but all governments are started by traitors and many rulers try to close the door behind them.

The most recent incarnation of German government wasn't started by traitors. It was started by essentially the people who were chosen by the winners of the last war.

Collaborators, then.

And how about conquerors? Or the first government in a place? Or survivors of the old government (see the history of the Turkish Republic, which was founded after the Ottoman Empire collapsed in WWI). Traitors are only one kind of people to start a new government.