In the closing arguments of the trial, the prosecution claims that Pfc. Bradley Manning intentionally enlisted into the Army and deployed to Iraq only to use his manifold computer skills to expose United States secrets that he knew would assist terrorist organizations in their efforts to attack the U.S. Conversely, the defense argued on Friday that Manning is a whistleblower who was trying to inform the American Public about the atrocities that he has seen in war.

So, which one has it right?

First, let’s give an overview of the prosecution. Chief prosecutor Army Major Ashden Fein said that WikiLeaks was only “the platform that Pfc. Manning used to make sure all the information was available to the world, including the enemies of the United States. Pfc. Manning deliberately disclosed compromised information to the world.”

The 25-year-old Manning has been charged with 21 offenses with the most serious being aiding the enemy. If convicted upon that charge, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Fein recounted the government’s case with sharp detail in front of the judge, Col. Denise Lind, arguing that Manning “personally sought out WikiLeaks as his vehicle for exposing more than 700,000 combat videos, terrorism detainee assessments, State Department cables and other highly secret materials.”

Perhaps the reason of Pfc. Manning’s leaking of secret documents was the certain fame that would come for going against the U.S. government. In the Ft. Meade courtroom, the prosecutor showed a self-shot picture of the soldier as he appeared “gleeful and grinning” upon sending the first links to WikiLeaks, signed, “Have a Good Day.”

Fein scolded, “He was interested in making a name for himself. The flag meant nothing to him.”

Let’s now focus upon the defense. ABC News reports that Attorney David Coombs disagrees with Fein’s claim that Manning was trying to seek popularity. “He's not seeking attention. He saying he's willing to accept the price” for what he has done, Coombs declared.

To make their case, the prosecution highlighted conversations between Manning and the convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo, abusing portions of the conversation. Coombs implored the judge to put the entire log into context.

Moreover, Coombs explained that Manning, a native of Crescent, Oklahoma, was upset by what he saw in the war zone and his struggles as a gay man in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” era.  Those struggles prompted him to do something to make a difference and incite debate and reform in American foreign and military policy by revealing the events in Iraq and Afghanistan and the response of U.S. diplomacy.

The 700,000 documents (only a small fraction of all available military documents) that were given to WikiLeaks were not believed to harm troops in the war zones or threaten national security, Manning said.

This selective behavior is noted by Attorney Coombs who said, “The amount of the documents in this case, actually is the best evidence that he was discreet in what he chose because if he was indiscriminate, if he was systematically harvesting, we wouldn't be talking about a few hundred thousand documents — we'd be talking about millions of documents.”

The verdict and sentence (if any) will be given perhaps in the next week. They will be reviewed and possibly reduced if the commander of the Military District of Washington, Maj. Gen. Jeffery S. Buchanan, deems it appropriate.