The Wikileaks collection

[John T. Fishel]

Legitimately classified stuff should only be declassified properly. That said, we shouldn't make it go into the "too hard box." My point, besidess being to give a bit of info on the nature and pitfalls of classification was to say that by not declassifying what and when we should, we create situations where someone else will "declassify" it by improper, unauthorized release. That is part of what happened in both the Pentagon Papers and the Manning and this other Wikileaks case. Not moral equivalency at all.

Tom, Australia is a combatant with us but NOT a member of NATO. She is actually a member of the ANZUS alliance. What, however, would you prosecute Wikileaks for? As far as I can tell, they have broken no US laws. Remember, we do not have an Official Secrets Act (which would probably be unconstitutional anyway). You can prosecute the govt leaker but not the media outlet.

Cheers

JohnT

[tom_mancino]

Legitimately classified stuff should only be declassified properly. That said, we shouldn't make it go into the "too hard box." My point, besidess being to give a bit of info on the nature and pitfalls of classification was to say that by not declassifying what and when we should, we create situations where someone else will "declassify" it by improper, unauthorized release. That is part of what happened in both the Pentagon Papers and the Manning and this other Wikileaks case. Not moral equivalency at all.

Tom, Australia is a combatant with us but NOT a member of NATO. She is actually a member of the ANZUS alliance. What, however, would you prosecute Wikileaks for? As far as I can tell, they have broken no US laws. Remember, we do not have an Official Secrets Act (which would probably be unconstitutional anyway). You can prosecute the govt leaker but not the media outlet.

Cheers

JohnT

Very true on both points. I wonder if Australian law is similar to our own, or more "liberal" with possible prosecution for disclosed secrets? Also, is it settled law that media outlets can't be prosecuted or is there a required 1st Amendment test relative to value of the information published to show the workings of government policy? I agree with your comments on over-classification as well. However, to me, this is exactly the type of intelligence that should remain classified for a very long time. It is unfiltered intel reporting of varying reliability, listing names/places/phone numbers, etc. not filtered analytical products with a historic value or insight into government policy (the downloadable data from wikileaks is non-redacted). Some of those reports were from just last year.