I realize you're very knowledgable in legal matters and enjoy playing the nitpicking contrarian in these cases, shining the light of truth on all us hopeless ignoramuses, but regardless of under whose jurisdiction the trial actually took place, yes, the US government equating leaks with the definition of treason would absolutely set a precedent that would spill over both into civilian courts as well as into the minds of potential leakers and journalists.

This isn't a nitpick, it cuts down the premise of your whole argument. Military tribunals decide lots of different things--when was the last time you heard a court or a regular person contemplate what would've been the result under military law? This isn't a question of legal experience--I'm asking based on your experience as a civilian person out in the world. Our culture draws an extremely deep distinction between military and civilian law.

Hey, I wanted to apologize for my personal attack earlier. I've been having a bad day and took some of that frustration out on you.

But as for your question, I'm speaking less about legal precedent (of course there's a difference between military and civilian court) and more about perception to would-be whistleblowers and government officials that this is what happens now to people that leak secrets, especially for such a publicized case.