This is what I've been saying. He swore an oath and signed security documents outlining his responsibilities as a soldier, and moreover, an intelligence soldier. Those guys in intel go through a long schooling process, sometimes upwards of 50 weeks in training before they get to their real units. He knew what could have happened to him from the day he stepped on that bus. It is TREASON. Now, I'm not going to disagree the world needed to know about these war crimes, but even the very nature of the war itself was unconventional. Soldiers in field are edgy, often losing sleep and working around the clock. The "enemy" is often a roadside bomb, some sniper fire, or something. The U.S. was fighting in an unconventional field, where combatants are not wearing uniforms; they look like the civilians you're trying to defend. Maybe it would have been better in terms of consequences if he waited until after the draw-down or after he'd left the military, but we'll never know.
But part of what determines treason in the US is "aiding the enemy". Also, this is a military case, not a civilian case. He gave up his rights when he joined the military, and they have a slightly different set of rules and definitions of crimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_Sta...The closest thing he's being prosecuted for is aiding the enemy.
Aiding the enemy is not treason. A given act may count as both, but they are not the same charge. In particular, aiding the enemy explicitly includes passing on intelligence indirectly.