Right, but I am pretty sure that the aiding the enemy is what we called "piling on". When you are going up before a CM, they go through the UCMJ and find anything remotely possible that they can charge you under and add it to the list of charges. It works two ways, one is that it makes what the person did seem more serious, and it gives more chances to get a successful prosecution on some charge. There is a little more to it than that, but that is it in essence. The aiding the enemy charge is one that is going to have about the highest level of difficulty proving, though based on the evidence I know of, it could very well be provable enough to get a conviction. It certainly would not hurt my feelings if they convicted him of it.
I have to disaree with you here. This is not a case of "piling on", as the primary reason for classifing some documents, some might claim all, is to deny the enemy intelligence. Article 104, clause (2) directly address giving intelligence to the enemy, anytime classified information is improperly released, this charge has strong and direct bearing.
For those who think it will be hard to prove this charge and get a conviction, well, look at the article.
ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
To get a conviction on this charge, the Prosecution only has to prove that his actions gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly. Besides the "gives intelligence", if he did indeed release classified documents, it is not going to be hard to prove he communicated, corresponded with the enemy, either directly or indirectly.
His "intent" has no bearing upon guilt or innocence only whether or not his actions meet the definitions of the articles under which he is charged. Proving intent may come into play in some civilian cases, but it has no bearing in military law, except deciding which articles apply in some cases. Example, the difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent, murder there is an intent to kill someone, manslaughter applies if intent to kill was lacking but death did occur. His lawyers better get a grip on military justice. If they bring up intent, prior to the sentecing phase, they will inadvertantly tell the panel that he is guilty in the military justice system. The fact that they tried to use intent to remove article 104 is admission that he is guilty and shows their unfamiliarality with military justice, since anyone reading the article can clearly see that intent is not a consideration under that article, only facts about what occured. To quote an old saying (and a line from a song) "I heard it said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
