At a hearing Thursday evening in Alexandria, Va., Judge T.S. Ellis reduced the sentence for the former defense official, Larry Franklin, to probation plus 10 months in “community confinement,” likely a halfway house.

Prosecutors had asked the judge to drop the sentence to 8 years in light of Franklin’s cooperation, while a defense lawyer for Franklin, Plato Cacheris, asked for “no sentence at all.”

In explaining his decision to dramatically reduce Franklin’s sentence, Ellis cited the lack of punishment and light punishments imposed on other leakers, as well as Franklin’s cooperation in the prosecution of the two lobbyists later fired from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman.

Last month, days before the case against the pair was set to go to trial, the government dropped the prosecution. The Justice Department said legal rulings in the case and the threat of new disclosures of classified information made a trial unadvisable.

“It’s a very difficult and unusual situation,” Ellis said. “This one is unique.”

The judge said he did not quibble with the government’s decision to drop the Rosen and Weissman prosecutions, but that the move was “significant” and had “some relevance” to what punishment Franklin should receive. He said it was “very disputable” whether some of the information at the heart of the case was actually the kind of “national defense information” it is illegal to relay outside the government.

Ellis railed Thursday against people who leak classified information, including those who leaked national intelligence estimates about Iran and revealed the existence of the warrantless wiretapping program maintained by the National Security Agency. However, he also said he had no problem with people who disclosed such information as an act of civil disobedience and accepted what followed. “Disclosing it was okay, if a person is willing to stand up and say, ‘I did it. Give me the consequences,’” the judge said.

Ellis said he wanted Franklin’s punishment to serve as a “beacon” to other officials that they would face serious consequences if they committed similar breaches. “Secrets are important to a nation. If we couldn’t keep our secrets, we would be at great risk,” the judge said.

Franklin pled guilty in 2005 to three felony counts involving illegal distribution and possession of classified information. He had been free pending the trial for the two ex-AIPAC officials. His attorney, Plato Cacheris, said the former policy analyst had trouble finding good work.

“He’s been digging ditches. He’s been cleaning cesspools,” the attorney said.

The information that Franklin gave to the two AIPAC lobbyists has never been officially detailed, but it related to the threat Iran posed to U.S. forces in the region. He also acknowledged numerous meetings with an Israeli diplomat, Naor Gilon.

In a plea for leniency Thursday, Franklin said he was motivated solely by “love of our republic and by the safety of our military personnel that were about to go into Iraq.” He insisted he wasn’t trying to leak anything, but simply to use a back channel to alert “a particular NSC source” to the dangers in Iraq. The ex-Pentagon analyst didn’t know at the time that Rosen and Weissman worked for the pro-Israel lobbying group.

Franklin said he wanted to spend time instructing young people “about the threat that civilization faces from those who would replace us,” who he indicated were the forces of “radical Islam.”

“One object of our adversaries is to force us to change internally. What I did was playing into that objective,” Franklin said. Franklin said he was “grateful to be in a country where the rule of law and a respect for human rights is vibrant.”

Ellis quickly interrupted. “You believe rule of law is important? ... I’ve lived in countries where there isn’t rule of law. I was born in one,” the Colombian-born jurist said. “And what really [matters] is whether government officials obey the law.”

Franklin said he did believe in the rule of law and he acknowledged “serious errors in judgment.”

That triggered another salvo from the judge. “An error is putting on the wrong color tie,” Ellis said. “We’re talking about crimes.”

Earlier, Cacheris argued that the government’s request of eight years imprisonment for Franklin “smacks of vengeance” stemming from the decision to abandon the prosecution against Rosen and Weissman. “It’s just not justified,” the defense attorney said. He insisted the decision to drop the case against the two ex-lobbyists “was not because of anything Mr. Franklin did.”

Cacheris’s description of Franklin’s cooperation also produced some intriguing news.

“He’s given them other cases involving people who cannot come into this country,” the defense lawyer said cryptically.

Cacheris also suggested that Franklin was the target of witness tampering in the Aipac case. “Someone came to approach Franklin to have him, in effect, disappear,” the defense attorney said. He said Franklin immediately reported the incident to authorities.

Cacheris did not elaborate on the episode, but it could help explain why the FBI sought to interview Jewish leaders several years ago about attempts to provide financial assistance or employment to Rosen and Weissman.

Prosecutor Neil Hammerstrom suggested Franklin deserved more severe punishment than Rosen and Weissman, had they been convicted. “In many ways, he was a more significant violator than Rosen and Weissman ever were alleged to be,” the prosecutor said. “If you don’t have people like Mr. Franklin in government doing that, you don’t have people [outside] passing classified information.”

Hammerstrom also noted that Franklin took top-secret information to his home even after being disciplined for such activity.

“You have before you an individual that just can’t seem to follow the law when it comes to classified information,” the prosecutor said. He said Franklin deserved credit for cooperating, but that his assistance had not been “ideal.”

In response to a question from Ellis Thursday, Franklin confirmed speculation that his rendezvous with Rosen and Weissman was arranged by Michael Makovsky, a former energy analyst for the Pentagon. Makovsky, who has left the government, was not charged in the case and was expected to be a witness at the trial of Rosen and Weissman

Before the main hearing Thursday, lawyers spent nearly half an hour arguing behind closed doors about whether the re-sentencing should be open to the public. The judge eventually allowed the press and public into the courtroom, though he said portions of court filings about Franklin’s sentence will remain under seal.

As the hearing concluded in the case, which has been the subjected of hard-fought legal battles for nearly four years, the judge struggled to maintained his composure. He praised prosecutors and defense lawyers. “You all did a very good job,” said Ellis, who is now semi-retired.