Rules of Engagement for Oakland same as for Iraq

Revised Friday Oct. 28, 2011

On Tuesday October 25th we used tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash grenades to crush the "Occupy Oakland" demonstration against our friends and benefactors on Wall Street.  At least 85 people were arrested.  One protester, Scott Olsen, an Iraq war vet who served two tours, is in critical condition.

One particular incident Tuesday evening showcased the extent to which we now apply the lose and flexible rules that characterized our recent military engagement in Iraq to the streets of American cities.

In April 2010 WikiLeaks (the group led by high-tech terrorist Julian Assange) released a leaked Pentagon file -- the so-called "Collateral Murder" video.  The video depicts the kind of behavior that Pentagon inquiries have deemed to fall within the bounds of our Rules of Engagement for Iraq.  For example, the video shows a badly wounded man bleeding on a Baghdad street.  A mini-van pulls up and some people get out to help the wounded fellow.  Fortunately, one of our helicopter gunships is in a position to uphold our Rules of Engagement and it fires upon the rescuers.

Here's the video.  It's set to begin playing from the spot where our military's attack on the helpers unfolds (9min 12sec):

In the next video, shot in the midst of our violent attack on protesters Tuesday, an Oakland police officer throws a flash grenade at a group of people trying to carry away a badly injured protester.





The Oakland police officer who tossed the flash grenade was undoubtedly familiar with our Rules of Engagement for Iraq.  We applaud the decision of this officer to uphold these rules on American soil.

If we are to exterminate the unruly spirit of altruism and dissent that plagues the streets of Oakland, New York and all the other occupied towns and cities across this great land of liberty, we must treat our own citizens no better than we have treated the inhabitants of the countries we have occupied.  We must train police to behave as if the bottom 99% of society consists of two kinds of American: the terrorist and the potential terrorist.  

Needless to say, we're counting on our news media to cover the attack on the good Samaritans in Oakland the same way CNN covered the attack on the rescue van in the WikiLeaks video.    

"The source who leaks defense information to the press commits an offense; the reporter who holds onto defense material commits an offense; and the retired official who uses defense material in his memoirs commits an offense."

- Harold Edgar and Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. in "The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information," Columbia Law Review, May 1973, vol. 73, pp. 929-1087

Alongside surveillance and sexual harassment lawsuits, United States Department of Fear considers the Espionage Act of 1917 one of the government's most important tools in our war against WikiLeaks.

Persons Guilty Under the Espionage Act
In fact, we have urged the Justice Department to throw the Espionage Act at anyone who assists WikiLeaks.  Clearly, anyone who helps to disseminate government secrets released by WikiLeaks should be found guilty under the Espionage Act.   For example, persons guilty under the Act must be assumed to include everyone who is responding to this recent appeal by WikiLeaks:

 
Friends of the Department Won't Face Prosecution Under the Act
Technically, the Espionage Act applies to retired officials who publish government secrets in their memoirs.   Former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld recently Tweeted:

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld has nothing to worry about.   Provisions of the Espionage Act do not apply to officials covered by Look Forward Not Backward Doctrine.  
 
For the benefit of prosecuting attorneys at the Department of Justice and in the interest of intimidating persons who might be tempted to follow WikiLeaks, we're posting the text of the Act:

The Espionage Act of 1917

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

Title I

ESPIONAGE

Section 1

That:

(a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information, concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defence, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defence, owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control or the United States, or of any of its officers or agents, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired. or stored, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place within the meaning of section six of this title; or

(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence; or

(c) whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain from any other person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defence, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this title; or

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Section 2

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:

(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years; and

(b) whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, shall collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval of military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification of any place, or any other information relating to the public defence, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years.

Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

Section 4

If two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of section two or three of this title, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy. Except as above provided conspiracies to commit offences under this title shall be punished as provided by section thirty-seven of the Act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine.

Section 5

Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Section 6

The President in time of war or in case of national emergency may by proclamation designate any place other than those set forth in subsection:

(a) of section one hereof in which anything for the use of the Army or Navy is being prepared or constructed or stored as a prohibited place for the purpose of this title: Provided, That he shall determine that information with respect thereto would be prejudicial to the national defence.

Section 7

Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial under sections thirteen hundred and forty-two, thirteen hundred and forty-three, and sixteen hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes as amended.

Section 8

The provisions of this title shall extend to all Territories, possessions, and places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whether or not contiguous thereto, and offences under this title, when committed upon the high seas or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and outside the territorial limits thereof shall be punishable hereunder.

Section 9

The Act entitles "An Act to prevent the disclosure of national defence secrets," approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby repealed.

Excerpts transribed, but not written by
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm
Originial source is United States Government

Prophetically, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III said in a 2004 address to Harvard Law School:

"In the fight for government secrecy, the Espionage Act is our big stick.  Its relevance is likely to increase.  I'm confident that future American leaders will regard the 1917 Act as a more important document than the Constitution."   

In December 2011 the House Justice Committee discussed the implications of the Espionage Act for the prosecution of WikiLeaks, its leader Julian Assange, and their co-conspirators in the media. 

See also here.

Miss America says security comes first

Here's the text of remarks by Teresa Scanlan of Nebraska who was crowned Miss America 2010.

QUESTION: "Everybody's talking about the Wikileaks, how do we balance people's right to know with the need for government security?"

ANSWER: "You know when it came to that situation it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation we have to focus on security first, and then people's right to know. Because it's so important that everyone in our borders is safe, and so we can't let things like that happen and they must be handled properly... and I think that was the case."

Security first.  Spoken like a true American.

Mike Hayden: "Privately security professionals paint a world even more dangerous"

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, stands on the far left.

Mike Hayden, a close friend of Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III, served as director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999–2005.  As NSA director, Mike was instrumental in turning the apparatus of American's spy technology "inward" so that the government could monitor the private phone conversations of the American people without any judicial oversight.

Having overseen signal intelligence assets that only narrowly missed detecting the terrorists who planned  the catastrophic attacks of 9/11, Mike has long been regarded as a true hero in the Global War on Terror.    Mike performed so well as leader of America's "electronic spy agency" that in 2006 he was promoted by Vice President Dick Cheney to serve as CIA director.  
Tuesday, in an op-ed for CNN, Mike explained "Who's to blame for damage from WikiLeaks?":

If anything, the private conversations of diplomats and security professionals paint a world even more dangerous than the one we usually allow ourselves to describe publicly. And there seems to be more consistency with this American worldview on the part of our friends and allies than is generally admitted. Quite an exposé.

Now what will this and the previous dumps cost us? With a certainty approaching 1.0, it will cost us sources. Some described in previous releases will be killed. Others, like those who described the inner workings of the formation of the German government, will simply refuse to talk to Americans.... 

SIPRNET, the Department of Defense network from which these documents were stolen, has a vast array of data available to hundreds of thousands of subscribers. We will now conclude that this is too much information and too many people, and we will once again be trading off potential physical safety for information security. It will set back the kind of information sharing that has actually made us safer since 9/11.

Who bears responsibility for this? The prime culprits are clear. 

There is, of course, the original leaker of the data. Then there is Julian Assange, whom I have described previously as "a dangerous combination of arrogance and incompetence." Listing global infrastructure sites that are critical and vulnerable is not transparency; it is perfidy.

"Partially and indirectly" Mike blames the Obama Administration [note: publicly DoF does not]:

But it was the Obama campaign that made a fetish of openness and transparency, and both the candidate and Harold Koh (then dean of the Yale Law School and now the top lawyer at the State Department) railed against the allegedly excessive secrecy of the Bush administration.

When President Obama decided to make public the details of a covert action of his predecessor -- the CIA interrogation program -- his spokesman defended the move as part of the president's standing commitment to transparency. Things may look different now, but actions and rhetoric have consequences.

And I would especially include the one U.S. news organization that has aggressively maneuvered to have early access to the Wiki dumps -- The New York Times. The Times could have said no to partnering with Assange. But the Times decided instead to attach what exists of its prestige to Assange's piratical enterprise, even though it had to obtain this latest WikiLeaks dump through a third party.

Essentially, The Cheney Administration had successfully created an environment in which secrecy was the norm.  But years of hard work were undone when the Obama campaign irresponsibly indulged the fantasies of the extreme left fringe of the Democratic Party.   Of course, today Obama exhibits a mature approach to secrecy -- as a president must -- but the rhetoric of the 2008 presidential campaign sent the wrong message to society at large.  The result?  Mainstream liberal media indulgence of WikiLeaks criminality.

It's one thing when government officials eavesdrop on the private conversations of the people, it's quite another when WikiLeaks presumes to allow the people to hear the secret conversations of their leaders. Mike understands this distinction and the extreme danger posed by the latter.

Students learn WikiLeaks cables too dangerous to touch

Columbia's SIPAA program partnered with the State Department to scare its students.

Integral to the mission of the United States Department of Fear is to encourage other departments of the federal government to spread fear in the interest of a more profitable foreign policy.  

That's why we love this letter.   A State Department official wrote to Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week.  The letter was a warning to students, informing them that talking about WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could ruin their futures by endangering their job prospects (so true).    Here's the letter: 

From: Office of Career Services 

Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Subject: Wikileaks - Advice from an alum
To: "Office of Career Services (OCS)"

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Regards,

Office of Career Services

The United States Department of Fear is proud to call the author of this letter one of our own.   

An opportunity to test a bunker-buster nuclear bomb

DoF has learned that WikiLeaks, the organization responsible for the ongoing "digital 9/11" attack on America, is storing 250,000 State Department cables -- stolen US government property -- in a data center  located in an underground bunker in Sweden (photo, above, shows the actual facility).    In addition,  WikiLeaks is probably using the facility to store confidential financial data belonging to a large, highly respected Wall Street bank.  The likely result of the release of this information would be another taxpayer-funded bank bail-out.

From CNN:

The MIT Technology Review, where we spotted this story, describes the situation this way:

"If Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is trying to turn himself into a Bond villain, he's succeeded: the ongoing distributed denial of service attack against Wikileaks has forced his minions to move the site to a fortified data center encased in a cold war-era, nuke-proof bunker encased in bedrock. Really."

Forbes has further details about the storage site:

"That data center will store Wikileaks' data 30 meters below ground inside a Cold-War-era nuclear bunker carved out of a large rock hill in downtown Stockholm. The server farm has a single entrance and is outfitted by half-meter thick metal doors and backup generators pulled from German submarines --fitting safeguards, perhaps."

One video, from a group called Data Center Pulse, describes the center as one of the coolest on earth and "fit for a James Bond villain." A man who describes himself as Bahnhof's CEO in the video says that the inspiration for the center actually was "science fiction and James Bond movies."

WikiLeak's use of this bunker presents an opportunity for America to test a bunker-buster nuclear warhead.   The development of the B61-11 nuclear warhead, green-lighted by president Clinton, became  a top priority of Vice President Cheney and former Sec Def Don Rumsfeld.  Although the missile is not yet in production, DoF has learned that a functioning prototype is available from Los Alamos.

Other advantages of nuking WikiLeaks
By using the B61-11 nuclear warhead against WikiLeaks's data center, we can send Iran a clear message.   Sweden, a sparsely populated country, is an ideal place to test this kind of technology in the unlikely event that anything should go wrong.  

A nuclear strike against WikiLeaks is an opportunity too good to pass up.  In addition to striking fear in the hearts of Tehran's monstrous leaders, the destruction of WikiLeaks' data center should reignite public enthusiasm for the continued development of America's nuclear arsenal in the years ahead.
___
This video describes how nuclear bunker-buster technology works:

WikiLeaks scaring the shit out of Americans

"It could be very, very damaging. . . . The Secretary slammed the release of the cables, calling it an attack."

- Jill Dougherty, CNN

"...there's enormous potential damage for the United States in these -- in these leaks, Jill. I assume that's what officials there are telling you."

- Wolf Blitzer, CNN

"WikiLeaks is creating a new and potentially dangerous information paradigm...."

- Ada Evening News

As never before during a national security crisis, Americans are turning to social media to express their fears.   A new survey of social media sites by a DoF research team reveals America's deep-seated fear of  WikiLeaks.

Dr. Rebecca Wolf, Deputy Secretary for Community and Social Media at DoF, has learned of Americans who "cannot sleep" (see here and here), so frightened are they of the subversive whistle-blowing organization.

Dr. Wolf writes, "The response on Twitter shows that the media is doing its job." She added, "Throughout the cablegate crisis, government and news media organizations have continued to cooperate in the interest of protecting the national security establishment."

The team's findings affirm that traditional news media organizations continue to serve a critical role.   Easton Syme, a senior DoF analyst, writes, "Rather than displace traditional media, DoF research shows that new social media tools complement traditional media.  Americans learn from traditional news sources what to fear; and the salience of the propaganda is amplified by social media.  It's a virtuous circle."

These tweets illustrate how America has reacted to WikiLeaks:

samtate Sam Tate  Wikileaks scares me

30 Nov 

montagious Monty Dhaliwal  wikileaks scares the hell out of me. Maybe ignorance really is bliss...

29 Nov 

sashanouri Sasha Nouri  This genuinely scares me. RT @cfarivar Gary Sick on Wikileaks, Iran and war  

29 Nov 

littleylittley Gregory Littley Wikileaks scares me, to the core. Hillary Clinton delivered statement on Wikileaks  

29 Nov 

jamesbailie James Bailie  wikileaks scares me. i have no idea what it is, or whether i'm going to die because of it....

29 Nov 

Larawriter Larawriter WikiLeaks scares me.

29 Nov 

DoF salutes everyone who has shared their fear of WikiLeaks by way of social media.  The reaction to WikiLeaks suggests that US citizens have learned to take perceived national security threats very seriously.   That's positive.  Of course, there can be too much of a good thing.   Scared shitless of WikiLeaks, the country may be at risk of paralysis.  Decisions will have to be made.  The question America's leaders face today is:  How to channel public fear of WikiLeaks into programs that will either profit our partners in the security and defense industries or expand the influence of the national security establishment?

Shortly after having been briefed by DoF opinion researchers, Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III participated in a panel with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.   Secretary Stag said,  "At this point, the government needs to do something -- just about anything -- and the sooner the better.  Basically, we've got to either bomb something* or pass some new laws.  Preferably both.  This approach promises to make the American People fee safer."

Mr. O'Reilly asked Secretary Stag if he could be more specific: "Assuming he's not too busy nationalizing American industry, what is the next step Obama might take?"

Sec Fear replied, "Obviously, the next step would be for our Commander in Chief to ask Sec Def Gates  to identify WikiLeaks-related targets to strike.   Whether the bombing is to be carried out by the CIA or the Pentagon, the president needs a list of targets.  He will also want to call up the Attorney General.   (Attorney Gen.) Holder will be told to compile a list of freedoms that Americans could be asked to give up in exchange for the perception of greater security."

__
* For example, we can try to take out Julian Assange, as suggested by the Rev. Mike Huckabee, perhaps by way of drone strike as suggested by an advisor to the Canadian prime minister.

Harper adviser says WikiLeaks could cause war

Does Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper understand the threat WikiLeaks poses to the topside of North America? It would seem so.  Speaking on CBC television, Harper advisor Tom Flanagan, recognizing that WikiLeaks has perpetrated a digital 9/11,  prudently called for the elimination of Julian Assange, the organization's leader:

"Well I think Assange should be assassinated actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."

As Flanagan shares DoF's view of the world, DoF looks forward to working more closely with the office of the Canadian prime minister in the future.   (In connection with Flanagan's bold idea, we are also hoping the Canadians can help persuade the British government to provide an airspace corridor just outside of London).



With the help of Canada, we're going to get Julian Assange. In the meantime, be afraid.

Can Eric Holder protect us from the WikiLeaks threat?

Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Obama.

Whenever America is attacked, we have two choices:  we can roll over and die, or we can fight back.  Because we're America, we fight.  How do we fight?  We fight back militarily wherever possible, but because we are society of laws, we also fight by adjusting the balance between freedom and security.

Americans know the time for us to give up freedoms is before we are dead.  Precisely, we have to let go of our freedoms at the point when we are starting to become very afraid.  With respect to the WikiLeaks threat, we are just about at that point today. Americans are clearly terrified of WikiLeaks.   For example:

tojihun Jihun Park  i'm afraid of the wikileaks' side effect. it may leak bloods of innocent people.

Wengles Luke 'Wengles' James  This Wikileaks thing is quite worrying. Afraid it's going to mess up relations all over the world.

ihroon ☆ Haroon ☆ No sleep...  Ugh scared of these wikileaks exposing.

But there's a right way, and a wrong way of sacrificing freedoms. In World War II, FDR made a mistake by interning Japanese Americans by an Executive Order (EO 9066). Because Roosevelt didn't go to Congress, the resulting internment became controversial. And it ended up costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

Fortunately, in 2001 Vice President Dick Cheney showed America how to do things the right way.  He asked Congress to pass the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act.)

By timely coincidence, the terrorists followed-up the attacks of 9/11 by sending packages of anthrax to Democratic senators and leading members of the liberal news media.  Fully cognizant of the risks America faced, overwhelming majorities in both parties felt compelled to approve the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law on Nov. 18, 2001.

This week America experienced what experts refer to as our "digital 9/11."   In the intelligence and defense communities, it is widely understood that the release of cables by WikiLeaks is the digital equivalent of the attacks of September 11.   Just as the strikes of 9/11 required the USA PATRIOT Act,  a similar response is called for today.   Where is Dick Cheney when we need him?

We may be in luck.  America may have a new Dick.  The Washington Post quotes US Attorney General Eric Holder today:

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that’s ongoing.” He did not indicate that [WikiLeaks founder] Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

The attacks by WikiLeaks have demonstrated that information can't be free.  It requires limits.   The time has come for America's lawmakers to act.

Lieberman: WikiLeaks has blood on hands in digital 9/11

UPDATED
On Sunday, Joseph Lieberman, the great senator from Connecticut tweeted:

WikiLeaks' deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on our national security.

DoF analysts, including our well-paid contractors in the private sector, have reached the same conclusion.   America is under attack by WikiLeaks. Taking their cue from leaders such as Lieberman, concerned Americans wonder whether "cablegate" could be the equivalent of a "digital 9/11."

America's staunchest allies overseas are concerned too:

• Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini calls WikiLeaks the "9/11 of World Diplomacy."   (One of the cables suggested that Frattini's boss, Berlusconi, enjoys wild parties with Putin.)
• Australia's Defense Minister Stephen Smith told Sky News, "This is an act which again one has no option but to absolutely condemn it.  It potentially puts national security interests and it puts the safety and welfare of individuals at stake."

Lieberman, in a statement, has further argued that:

By disseminating these materials, WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. It is an outrageous, reckless, and despicable action that will undermine the ability of our government and our partners to keep our people safe and to work together to defend our vital interests. Let there be no doubt: the individuals responsible are going to have blood on their hands. I stand in full support of the Obama Administration's condemnation of WikiLeaks for these disclosures. I also urge the Obama Administration -- both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world -- to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables. 

Of course, when Lieberman urges Obama "to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables," the senator does not mean to preclude the president access to whatever extralegal means may be necessary.

US Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York and the incoming chair of the House Homeland Security Committee (which oversees the United States Department of Fear), has requested president Obama to "determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated a foreign terrorist organization." King wrote in a letter to Clinton that "WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria, WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States."

Malcolm P. Stag III, Secretary Fear, told Fox News in an interview this morning, "In the past WikiLeaks has sought to embarrass our national security establishment.  Now they have chosen to target our peace-and-diplomacy-loving wimps at the State Department.  Though we may not approve their methods, they're our wimps."

"Something more than the reputation of America's leaders is now at stake," continued Sec. Stag.  "Nothing ought to be off the table in the War on WikiLeaks."

UPDATE
Craig Murray, a former British diplomat, writes on his blog, "These leaks will claim innocent lives, and will damage national security. They will encourage Islamic terrorism. Government secrecy is essential to keep us all safe. In fact, this action by Wikileaks is so cataclysmic, I shall be astonished if we are not all killed in our beds tonight."   

Press needs to realize terrorists not the only threat

Today a must-read Wall Street Journal editorial explained the extent to which press freedom constitutes an ever-present threat to our national security. Pointing to the recent unauthorized release of secret US government documents by Wikileaks, the paper explained that by continuing to exercise its freedom, "the press will put its own freedom in jeopardy."  

True enough.  But to their credit, the WSJ's editors took the occasion to remind us that threats to national security extend far beyond terrorism: 

 But the closer we and others have looked at the documents, it's clear that the WikiLeaks dump does reveal a great deal about the military's methods, sources, tactics and protocols of communication. Such details are of little interest to the public at large, and they are unlikely to change many minds about the conduct, or wisdom, of the war. But they are of considerable interest to America's avowed enemies and strategic competitors such as Russia and China.

It is important to realize that the terrorists are by no means the only threat that America faces.

In the interests of national security, DoF Secretary Malcolm P. Stag echoed the Wall Street Journal editors in comments at a press conference this morning:

"'Freedom of the press' must be balanced against the 'risks of the press'," said SecFear.