Chelsea Manning will now be released from prison in May as a 29-year-old, rather than serving her full sentence until 2045, when she would have been almost 60. That Manning has won back almost a lifetime of freedom only serves to illustrate the scale of clemency granted by US President Barack Obama.
But the decision also serves to correct what was a grossly disproportionate punishment for the crime Manning committed. The former US army intelligence analyst, who stunned the world by leaking thousands of classified military and diplomatic reports, was cleared by a military judge in 2013 of charges of aiding the enemy and allegations she acted as a traitor with "general evil intent". Yet the court martial imposed a 35-year prison term, the longest-ever custodial sentence relating to a leak of classified documents.
Chelsea Manning admitted leaking the classified material.Credit: AP
Manning always maintained her action was that of a whistleblower. Then known as Bradley, she had become disillusioned in 2009 after being deployed to Iraq as a low-level officer with extraordinary access to a vast classified network. She copied thousands of military reports from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as about 250,000 diplomatic cables from US embassies around the world, delivering the entire trove to online publishing group WikiLeaks.
Manning admitted leaking the material but told prosecutors her desire was to "spark a domestic debate on the role of our [US] military and foreign policy in general" in an area too often characterised by needless secrecy. She certainly achieved this aim. The files provided an unprecedented insight into the drawn-out campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan; ties between military partners involved in the fighting; and instances where authorities – the Australian government included – knowingly misled the public. The leak also revealed the role of a US military helicopter in killing civilians, including two journalists, along with profiles of detainees held in limbo at Guantanamo Bay.
The Age, in conjunction with other major media organisations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, published public-interest stories at the time based on the material Manning had provided to Wikileaks. As we observed in 2013 when her sentence was imposed, the newspapers did not agree with the open-slather approach adopted by WikiLeaks to release material and instead withheld information that could jeopardise national security or pose a danger to individuals. So we published with context from the premise that "whistleblowers play a vital role in keeping governments answerable for their actions".
Mr Obama's grant of clemency to Manning has been made in circumstances vastly different to that of Edward Snowden, who subsequently leaked more highly sensitive material yet has not faced trial for his actions. Snowden has sought a presidential pardon after having fled to Russia; Manning admitted guilt but rightly argued the sentence imposed upon her was manifestly unfair.
Her impending release will understandably also focus interest on the fate of WikiLeaks editor and Australian citizen Julian Assange. WikiLeaks has sought to link him to the clemency granted to Manning by suggesting Assange will agree to be extradited to the US. Yet it would be a mistake to conflate the two cases.
Assange remains holed up inside Ecuador's embassy in London but has not been charged with any crime relating to the publication of the material provided by Manning. He is wanted in relation to an investigation into allegations that he committed rape in Sweden in 2010. It is a case that must be given separate attention.