The judge, Col. Denise Lind, ruled at a pretrial hearing that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Private Manning had “reason to believe” that the files could be used to harm the United States or to aid a foreign power. Prosecutors had contended that they should be required to prove only that he willfully disclosed defense-related files to win a conviction under the spying law.

Private Manning’s trial is scheduled to begin in June. During a hearing in February, he confessed to having provided to WikiLeaks videos of airstrikes in which civilians were killed, a quarter-million diplomatic cables, assessment files of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and logs of military incident reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. But he portrayed himself as having thought carefully about the information he was releasing to make sure it would not cause harm.

Private Manning has already pleaded guilty to 10 charges, exposing himself to up to 20 years in prison. But the plea was not part of any deal with the government, and prosecutors are pressing forward with trying to win a conviction on more serious charges — including aiding the enemy and multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act — that could result in a sentence of life without parole.

The Espionage Act outlaws giving military-related information to someone who is not authorized to receive it. The provision under which Private Manning was charged has two clauses. One covers documents, like code books, and requires only proof of willful disclosure. The other covers generic “information” and also requires proof that the person who released it had reason to believe that it could cause harm.

The Espionage Act charge against Private Manning quotes the “reason to believe” language. Thus, Colonel Lind said, the “government elected to charge the communications” under the second provision, and so prosecutors must prove his awareness that his actions would result in harm.

A military legal spokesman argued that the decision may make little difference because the judge previously ruled that Private Manning’s motive — whether he thought of himself as trying to help society — was irrelevant to whether he intentionally broke the law. The fact that many of the documents were classified, he said, was a reason for Private Manning to believe that their disclosure could cause harm.

But Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said that it could be difficult in practice to separate whether someone had a malicious motive from whether someone had reason to believe that a disclosure would harm the country. He said the ruling imposed a more demanding standard on prosecutors.

“Their job will be harder than it would have been had the judge ruled otherwise,” he said.

Also on Wednesday, Colonel Lind ruled that prosecutors, in seeking to show that Private Manning was guilty of “aiding the enemy,” would be allowed to present evidence that some of the files were obtained by Osama bin Laden. Some of the files disseminated by WikiLeaks are said to have been found on a digital device seized in the raid on Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.

The defense argued that it did not matter whether Bin Laden saw the files, and that such evidence could be inflammatory and distracting. But Colonel Lind said that “evidence of the path of the intelligence” might be “relevant to whether the accused knew or did not know he was dealing with the enemy,” and that it would not sidetrack the trial.

A handful of pretrial issues remain, including how to handle witnesses who may discuss classified information. Colonel Lind said that she and the legal teams would hold a “dry run” in private with a potential witness to explore whether closing the courtroom may be necessary. She also said she would allow one witness — possibly a commando who picked up evidence during the Bin Laden raid — to testify under the pseudonym John Doe, in a closed session, and while wearing a light disguise.

Military authorities, meanwhile, said that while court was in session they would ban cellphones and air cards and turn off the wireless Internet in a media center where reporters and activist bloggers watch a closed-circuit feed from the courtroom. The steps were a response to the release on the Internet by the Freedom of the Press Foundation of a bootleg recording of Private Manning’s statement in February. Colonel Lind emphasized that recordings were not allowed at any court-martial proceeding.

“To date I have not ordered persons to be screened for phones and recording devices,” she said. “I hope I won’t have to. I trust you will all follow the rules and we will not have any additional violations of the court’s rules.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/military-tightens-media-rules-in-leaks-case.html?partner=rss&emc=rss