joining me now is liza goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the brennan center for justice. okay. am i being hyperbolic here? can it possibly be the case that the government's assertion in aiding the enemy charge was as massively problematic from a precedent perspective as it appears to be? >> i don't think you're being hyperbolic, i think you're being underbolic. i'm not sure what the opposite of that is because i don't think that the judge rejected that line of reasoning. i think what the judge said, yes, government, you're right about where i should set the bar but you didn't get over that bar. basically the judge said if the government had proven bradley manning knew al qaeda was using the internet and looking at websites like wikileaks beyond a reasonable doubt, then the government would have prevailed on that charge. >> the judge is saying there's nothing wrong with the -- the full text, "any person who aids or intends to aid the enemy with supplies, money or other things, knowingly harbors, protects, gives intelligence to, communicates or corresponds with or holds intercourse with the enemy, directly