>>>>>>>Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense are conducting a criminal investigation of WikiLeaks over its release of confidential government communications.
>>>>>>>Shouldn't they be investigating the ones whole stole the info instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He's been locked up for 7 months....awaiting court martial....
>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/how-us-embassy-cables-leaked
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh - I didn't realize that these new leaks came from the same source. I don't understand then - just what exactly does the DOD and DOJ plan to nail WikiLeaks with? The shoot the messenger law or what? Is the fact that they published this stuff that someone else ripped of illegal? Perhaps it is I dunno....
>>>>
>>>>Uh yeah. At a minimum, espionage:
>>>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html
>>>>
>>>>The U.S. can go after him:
>>>>http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/olc_override.pdf
>>>>
>>>>But, it's quite a conundrum - any US agents who attempt such an unlawful arrest (unlawful under the host country's laws) could be liable to prosecution themselves by the host country. Remember this:
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html?_r=1
>>>>
>>>>Not to mention the public relations nightmare. The U.S. loses no matter what. It already lost. Now that state department communications were also leaked, I'm starting to put more weight in Charles' theory....
>>>
>>>So this means that everyone who downloaded the torrent of all this is now guilty of espionage?
>>
>>Not likely:
>>
>>But experts said it was unlikely that Amazon would face legal action for selling services to WikiLeaks. For one thing, now that the information disclosed by the site is already public, it might not be considered contraband, said Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of law and computer science at Harvard University.
>
>Ok...well didn't the guy who stole the data give it to the press first (or also)? If that's the case then by the same logic WikiLeaks shouldn't be subject to this either.
>Sounds to me like the big-wigs in Washington are just pissed because they've been caught looking like idiots doing/saying things they shouldn't and instead of addressing their behavior they push it off on WikiLeaks and blame them.

It wasn't published until WikiLeaks did. Up until that moment, the information was still contained more or less (the culprit is under court martial investigation and hold for prosecution). Regardless, while espionage laws do state that you could also be liable, we both know that will never happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.