WikiLeaks a human failure but First Amendment still applies

Whoever leaked hundreds of thousands of dispatches and cables to WikiLeaks reportedly had access to SIPRNET, the US Defense Dept. and the State Dept.’s Secret Internet Protocol Router Network. Outrage is running through the blogosphere right now—the left is predictably horrified at how state business is conducted and the right is horrified at such an unprecedented security leak.

Little is known other than WikiLeaks has the goods and theories are afoot about US Army private Bradley Manning as the leaker. At the moment there are only theories—no evidence has officially been disclosed and no trial has been held.

We really shouldn’t be surprised, however. The surprise is that it took this long for such an incident to occur because the BBC said SIPRNET was set up in the 1990s.

The BBC also said, “It is thought about 2.5 million US military and civilian personnel have access to the network.”

That raises two questions—why do so many have access and why should we assume there is only one leaker in light of the sheer numbers with access?

Allegations surfaced about Manning because a fellow hacker aired allegations after Manning talked to him. The Guardian (UK) said, “It was childishly easy, according to the published chatlog of a conversation Manning had with a fellow-hacker. ‘I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga' … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing...’”

Manning reportedly had access to classified networks “14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months.”

What is truly confounding is that someone with Manning’s record would be anywhere near an intelligence file. I’ve pointed out in previous columns Manning’s record was cloudy at best—The New York Times said Manning had been “reprimanded twice.” One incident included assaulting an officer.

Manning’s job in the private sector was short-lived. The NYT also said, “He was hired and quickly fired from a small software company, where his employer, Kord Campbell, recalled him as clean-cut and highly intelligent with an almost innate sense for programming, as well as the personality of a bull in a china shop.”

Manning is also believed to be the leaker of the edited video ‘Collateral Damage.’ Media routinely dramatize the video as an example of brutal US troops killing civilians. I wrote about this in June and I marveled that people would accept a version of a film that had been truncated—completely plucked from the context of the surroundings, of the individuals under fire, of the locals’ fondness for sheltering the enemy.

This certainly isn't the first time a large amount of data was compromised. In March, 2009, a terabyte of data from the National Archives on the Clinton administration went missing. Rep. Daryl Issa (R-Calif.) called for a hearing. Big media barely gave the incident a nod.

The fact that WikiLeaks is completely non-transparent about its own operations, funding and motives also came to mind.

Whoever leaked the data, whether an individual or group, there was ample opportunity to prevent the leak by limiting access to the information as well as by closely vetting those who had access to the information.

As for WikiLeaks, it is impossible to cast the First Amendment aside. That website, regardless of motive or sponsorships, did what any media outlet would do and what a number of American media outlets did—publish the material. Any attempt to punish such a publisher, especially one operating outside the country, is not viable.

However, if it is possible to meet the criteria for treason, those who leaked the material should be tried for treason, especially if the leakers were in military service at the time.

Julian Assange is the messenger, and while I abhor what he did and I question the issue of who benefits from what he did, I must remind myself the First Amendment is far too important to legally go after Assange for doing what US media did—publish sensational news.

Human failure in the command realm and the personnel realm enabled these leaks, based on what is known at present. For the leftwinger(s) who had access to the SIPRNET data, temptation was too great apparently.

Is it possible WikiLeaks and the leakers were manipulated by forces as yet unknown? Who benefits?

(Analysis by Kay B. Day/Nov. 29, 2010)