How they see it

The New York Times

Lurking just behind a military court's conviction of Private Bradley Manning … is a national-security apparatus that has metastasised into a vast and largely unchecked exercise of government secrecy and the overzealous prosecution of those who breach it. … The judge in the court martial, Colonel Denise Lind, was wise to acquit Private Manning on the most serious charge against him - that he had "aided the enemy". … Aiding the enemy is punishable by death. To convict under this law without requiring at least an intent to communicate with an enemy would have severely chilling implications for free speech. … The government should … do something about its addiction to secrecy. New York

The Guardian

Edward Snowden's father told Russian TV that if his son returned to the United States he did not believe "a court would be fair". … An American court trying Edward Snowden would not be fair, just as the court that has just convicted Bradley Manning has not been fair, because American law in this area is not fair. … The Espionage Act was rushed onto the statute book in 1917 … at a time of hysteria about traitors and German spies. … But neither Manning or Snowden slipped the plans for a new submarine or the figures for howitzer production to a man on a dark street corner. … Judges … shrink from making decisions on national security they believe are beyond their competence. This must change. London