I think "actively worked against the Constitution" is a bit of a stretch, but he definitely broke the law. A just and reasonable law. He should and will be punished.
I didn't mean to say that the law would or should go easy on him -- just that his crimes aren't in the same league as a John Walker (the Navy spy, not the Taliban kid), an Aldrich Ames or a Robert Hanssen. Not in scope, not in intent, not in damage done. And he won't face the kind of penalties they got. I'm a big fan of proportionality.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the other side of the equation. If they were providing documents to law enforcement, who was receiving them? I doubt they just walked into a police station or FBI office and left them at the desk. My best guess: They had a single point of contact, a guy who rose through the ranks as a "supercop" because he took credit for ferreting out what the Marines told him. That's the guy who's an interesting character to me -- it'd make a great movie.
That's why he got only 26 months in jail. The others won't get much more than that.
There are only two kinds of cases with regard to classification breaches, and military prosecutors know this. There is malicious, and non-malicious.
Both deserve significant punishment (whether it's a formal reprimand, demotion, jailtime, or something in between).
Breaches "with the best of intentions" or simple boneheaded mistakes in judgement will get the lower end of the scale, while malicious breaches should and do get the maximums up to life imprisonment or the death sentence.IMO the military has a pretty good handle on which kind or breach demands which type of approach.