Putting it out there for discussion....

Has "diplomacy" finally met its match?

Is the publication of diplomatic but apparently unclassified documents illegal?

Has the classification status of these documents been verified?

Is Wiki Leaks the criminal or the persons that obtained the original documents the criminal?

Is the real issue what these documents say, rather than what the diplomatic spin is on the issues covered by the documents?

Read a couple of the links we have going in this thread

BTW, unclassified documents can still be sensitive, so I guess that depends on how you view the term.

There is a class of information in the States we call EEFI- Essential Elements of Friendly Information. This is regarded as simple, unclassified information, which if pieced together, can reveal something bigger going on. The pieces by themselves mean relatively nothing.

Apparently DOD isn't going to play along; check the links in the other post out.

The source of the documents is part of the issue. The documents in question came from a secure network where the presumption is that all information within that system is classified until reviewed and released from classification.

The EEFI is an updated name for what DoD used to call Sensitive But Unclassified. The documents in question appear fall into that category. They still need to be reviewed and declassified before released. They do have fewer controls on storage. However, they do need to be shredded/burned when not needed.

In my understanding of the system, the person removing the controlled documents from the controlled space and providing them to an unauthorized source is guilty of a crime. The level of classification can influence the severity of charges. And, intentional vs unintentional also influence the severity of charges.

Once released (even though improper), there are laws that come into play against publication.

What is interesting is that Bush administration was hammered hard for the release of the name of a CIA operative (considered EEFI) while the current administration is getting a pass on intentional release of more sensitive information and a greater volume of information. I understand that some of the previous WikiLeak info was either confidential or secret.

There are some distinct differences in these 2 situations.

Not really.

The Bush era issue was from a political staffer -- still a member of the Executive Branch

The Young private is in the Armed Forces which is part of the Executive Branch.

Both involved release of sensitive data in violation of rules.

In the case of the political staffer, it was argued "unintentional" release.

In the case of the private, it is alleged to be "intentional" release.

In the case of intentional, all is quite on the news front....

Well, it is always more fun to blame Bush for things. Everyone knows the Messiah <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/evil.gif" alt="" /> can do no wrong. He's to smart for that. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

The freedom of the press is absolute. Or at least should be. Even if the press obtains a document that is highly damaging to this country and publishes it, they should be able to.

Risk is part of having a Constitution and if the rights are not fundementally protected, it might as well not exist at all.

The person who leaked the documents is guilty of a crime, if they can be found and prosecuted. Any media outlet that publishes those documents is not.

The very day we proscute the media for printing supposedly classified information it the day we have NO freedom of press.

The reason is simple. The government can classify anything and there is no recourse or standard by which they have to meet. Therefore any document about anything the government does can be classified and if published or reported on, the media can be prosecuted.

That simply cannot happen, no matter the cost.

The constitution actually has a provision to allow the government to protect itself and the people in extreme circumstances, such as a declared war. Those circumstances are very temporary. And since our government has declared no war and hasn't since 1941, it has no privlage to suspend the rights of the press.

No other country on earth can appreciate this or what we are protecting, because no other country on the planet has a true constitution that protects the people from the government.

Every other government that pretends to be democracy or republic has rights that a derived from the government and allocated to the people, which means that government can take those right away anytime and often do.