So all the government need to do is to prove that someone accidentally got more than the main part of the documentation they want to leak and they are not whistleblowers anymore?
Within reason, yes. If they were leaking things indiscriminately, then they shouldn't be considered a whistleblower, even if some of their leaked information was about something that the public had a legitimate interest in knowing.
These aren't black and white issues, so think more in terms of what a "reasonable" person would consider. If your goal is to expose a particular program - then you should be leaking only things relevant to that program. Throwing in diplomatic cables between embassies because you can just isn't relevant. And it weakens your argument for whistleblower protection.
If you consider the systemic problems in the US military industrial complex to be a "fly", including the cover up of mass murder of civilians, I'd hate to see what you consider a big problem.
Fair enough, but the state is pursuing Snowden with similar fervor. Do you believe he will be afforded reasonable whistleblower protections for being more judicious in his revelations? I suspect the state will demonize him in the same way, and seek to send another message to whistleblowers that revealing state crimes will cost you your life.
I think he has a reasonable shot at it. Notice how many high-ranking pols have publically spoken up in support of Snowden...something that never happened with Manning.
Well, had the judge not imposed the extra element on the base version of the UCMJ "aiding the enemy" charge he very well could have been convicted of that too. The UCMJ is sometimes incredibly broad, and that's no less the case here. Certainly there is no minimum document count needed to be convicted. A single document would suffice, in fact.
What a peculiar logic.