Wikileaks Release Imminent

[ProSense]

Wikileaks Release Imminent

David Kurtz

The State Department is demanding that Wikileaks halt the imminent release of its next batch of classified U.S. government documents. The latest batch reportedly will include thousands of State Department cables. Some are believed to be highly sensitive, others merely embarrassing -- to the U.S. and to foreign governments.

In an emailed letter yesterday to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his lawyer, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh calls for Wikileaks to return the classified documents:

If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from Wikileaks' database.

The AP paraphrases the letter as stating "that publication of the documents would be illegal and demanding that they stop it." There's little doubt that whoever within the U.S. government had access to the documents and leaked them did so in violation of the law -- but whether Wikileaks bears any criminal liability in the U.S. for their publication is an entirely different issue.

Reading the letter closely, I think Koh stops short of stating that publication of the documents would be illegal, as the AP suggests. That would get Koh into "prior restraint" territory. The closest Koh comes to saying Wikileaks has broken the law is when he accuses Wikileaks of "furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents." He also claims that the documents were "illegally obtained" and that so long as Wikileaks retains the documents then "the violation of the law is ongoing." Parsing Koh carefully, his ire is directed at Wikileaks but the punch of his legal argument is aimed at the original leaker(s).

The Koh letter also reveals that Wikileaks has given the latest batch of materials in advance to the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel. That's consistent with Wikileaks' prior practice of leaking the leak, as it were, in advance under embargo to major news outlets.

Wikileaks is expected to post the documents online today.

[Clear Blue Sky]

1. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Publish away...

[Phx_Dem]

2. I'd like to see Assange thrown in prison for treason, along with the

guy who leaked the information.

The public doesn't have a right to see confidential or classified e-mails about and between countries where there is no allegation of criminal activities.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Those are all our property

Created by our employees. We are not subjects.

[Phx_Dem]

42. That's bullshit. You don't have a right to read every fucking email.

We have laws that allow for top secret, confidential and classified information.

[DavidDvorkin]

43. No, bullshit is a spookocracy out of control

and frightened citizens who treat their government like an absolute monarchy.

[_ed_]

5. Treason?

Assange is not an American citizen. You can't try non-Americans for Treason.

You might want to take a look at a case from the Vietnam era called the "Pentagon Papers" case. You'll find out that you're 100% wrong on the law concerning First Amendment freedom of the press and "national security."

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. And, if you would have felt differently when Bush was in office, you're a gigantic hypocrite.

[egoclothes]

15. Yes, we do have that right. The war was wrong and illegal. Sunshine is best

[superduperfarleft]

17. How would you go about prosecuting someone who is not a US citizen for treason? n/t

[Alexander]

38. If it walks like a goose...

[LittleBlue]

45. Agreed. Blue version of a Bushocracy lover

New president, same shit.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

41. You might need to look up the definition of treason. On the other hand

the soldier who gave him all those documents will probably be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Whether or not that individual is charged with treason that's another matter.

[Peacetrain]

3. If this guy lets out information that gives fuel to the republicans to stop the START treaty

he is no better than any fundy extremist who would destroy this country for their own political goals.

There are people who truly do hate the United States and all its citizenry and it is NOT Democrats or liberals..

[_ed_]

6. Assange is NOT American

What are you talking about? Not everyone in the universe is an American Democrat or Republican. It's a big world out there...

[Peacetrain]

7. I never said he was an American..but he can give aid and comfort to the right side

who have START in their "sites" to use the gun vernacular they are so fond of

[_ed_]

8. So, this non-citizen

should do his patriotic duty to a country that he is not a citizen of? What do you mean?

[Peacetrain]

9. Its black and white there kiddo.. I say what I mean

If he chooses to dump information that will give aid and comfort to Kyl and company to stop the START treaty.. he is no better than them

[_ed_]

10. He's not a part of the American political system,

likely has no idea who John Kyl is, and probably doesn't give a shit. How much do you know about his home country?

He's not part of the cable news left/right dynamic.

[Peacetrain]

11. Is he a member of the population of earth .. or some denezin of Mars

The START treaty and nuclear proliferation affects us all .. just not the citizenry of the US.

[_ed_]

12. OK

So, he should not release these FACTS because they might provide a bullshit argument to some politicians he doesn't know in a political party that he doesn't belong to in a country where he does not live. Got it.

[Peacetrain]

13. That is the reponsibility that comes with power.. he has power

[_ed_]

14. These are FACTS

What the US is doing IN OUR NAME. I say release them all and let the chips fall where they may. There are only one million ways to argue for START that the Democrats can use to defuse the latest Repub propaganda.

[Peacetrain]

18. Facts are this... the START treaty and keeping an eye on Russians loose nukes

is of utmost importance to the welfare of all of us, including the Russians..and that is no matter where you live in the world. The Wikileaks people have the information.. information is power.. they have the power to release information from embassies that will have those countries up in arms about what embassy people are saying.. and that ability to use these people not only on this START treaty but future treaties could be compromised.

Wikileaks now has that ball.. and if they choose to dump embassy communiques that would hurt our START treaty or have the signers pull out and play right into the hands of the uber right in this country.. they have to wear that hair shirt.

[_ed_]

20. Nonsense

It's a false choice between releasing the Wikileaks documents and getting START passed in Congress. It's not like START is impossible if Wikileaks releases these documents. If you expand your argument, the gov't could make up an excuse to stop every leak of this kind. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Release the docs -- I want to know what's happening in my name.

And if that actually does affect this one treaty, then fine. The truth is more important than getting rid of a few nukes. We all still have more than enough to render the earth inhospitable for millenia.

[Peacetrain]

21. Oh for the love of GOD ed... loose nukes are a huge threat.. and it is not nonsense

You and I are just going to go back and forth on this and get nowhere..

[_ed_]

23. Like I said, it's a false choice

Loose nukes are a problem. Government secrecy is a problem. You don't need to choose between the two.

Can you PROVE that the release of the documents WILL CERTAINLY result in the end of the START treaty? And, further, you also need to prove that START will SOLVE the loose nukes problem, or else START is inadequate to do what you're saying, and therefore irrelevant to the release of the Wikileaks docs.

[Peacetrain]

24. Of course you can make rational decisions.. anyone can, including wiki

[_ed_]

25. You didn't answer my question

Can you PROVE that the release of the documents WILL CERTAINLY result in the end of the START treaty? And, further, you also need to prove that START will SOLVE the loose nukes problem, or else START is inadequate to do what you're saying, and therefore irrelevant to the release of the Wikileaks docs.

[Peacetrain]

26. ed I can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow.. all I have is the fact that it came up yesterday

can you prove it will not?

[_ed_]

27. You can't logically prove a negative

So no.

I think we're realizing that your premise is a false choice, no?

[Peacetrain]

28. That last post is my last post.. I have to go to lunch.. we will have to finish this conversation

another time.

[_ed_]

29. OK

I think we both know that your premise is a false choice.

[MattSh]

19. So, you're saying he should give up all his power.

Then what does he have left?

[Catherina]

16. It's unbelievable ain't it? n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. are these about the 9/11 attacks?

that would be interesting!

[ProSense]

30. I don't think the information targets any specific incident

which is why it will likely lack context. How selective is the information being released? Information targeted to a specific incident would be one thing, something that can be isolated and given context, but no one seems to know the target, the purpose, the context or anything. The only word being thrown around is "embarrassing."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. why didn't they 'release' these years ago and how is classified info being released

I thought if it was classified it was under lock and key?

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Good.

[impik]

33. This is a terrible damage. Shame on those who celebrate what could destroy

the entire state department. People will die because of this.

[superduperfarleft]

34. LOL.

I'm sure you're just awash with concern.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

39. Double LOL. n/t

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

40. Just FYI, they're not reflexively defending government secrecy.

That would indicate a consistent, albeit frighteningly authoritarian, position.

No, this is still American Idol 2008 for some...

[Umbral]

35. "...stop the damage from your actions," there's an extra 'y' in that statement. nt

[LittleBlue]

44. Good. Thank God for Wikileaks.

Keep exposing the US government.