There does not seem to be a convincing reason in principle not to prosecute the Times for espionage and treason.

This reductio ad absurdum is worth exploring to illustrate the absurdity of the situation we are now in. The United States government for all intents and purposes is legally unable to protect classified information, safeguard national security, and prosecute leaks. The one tool it has -- the Espionage Act -- is a nearly century-old statute that is so draconian, politically radioactive, and difficult to implement that it is essentially defunct.

As I said before: The primary consequence of Wikileaks will be the tools, process, and laws that will be used in the future to suppress other leaks.

Replace the Espionage Act - By Paul Miller | Shadow Government

A day after a number of national and international businesses including Mastercard and Visa, acting under pressure from the U.S. Senate, refused to do business with Wikileaks on the grounds that they are violating the law - someone in the Senate has finally offered which law, specifically, Wikileaks is alleged to have broken:

The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

Is this correct? How is Wikileaks differentiated from the NYT? If this is correct, why hasn't the Obama admin charged Julian Assange under this statute?

In light of the actions taken by various companies to shut down this website and the implications for freedom of speech the question of legality is vitally important.

Dianne Feinstein: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - WSJ.com

The greatest threat we face right now from Wikileaks is not the information it has spilled and may spill in the future, but the reactionary response to it that’s building in the United States that promises to repudiate the rule of law and our free speech traditions, if left unchecked.

Lieberman's actions have cost the US Gov the moral high ground regarding the Wikileaks issue.

Why WikiLeaks Is Good for America | Threat Level | Wired.com

WikiLeaks may well make us uncomfortable in some of what it does, though in general I believe it's done far more good than harm so far. We need to recognize, however, as Mathew Ingram wrote over the weekend, that "Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity." What our government is trying to do to WikiLeaks now is lawless in stunning ways, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald forcefully argued today.

These are also acts of outright censorship. No, Amazon is not bound by the First Amendment. But if it's bowing to government pressure, it's helping a panicked government tear up one of our most basic freedoms.

Defend WikiLeaks or lose free speech - Dan Gillmor - Salon.com

The US "IP Czar," Victoria Espinel, said at a conference this week that Homeland Security's seizure of a bunch of domain names was apparently just the beginning of a larger plan to go after such folks.

US Copyright Czar: Expect More Domain Censorship | Techdirt

When authorities can’t get what they want by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is that they can’t get what they want...

If it’s OK for a democracy to just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn’t prosecute a newspaper for doing, the idea of an internet that further democratizes the public sphere will have taken a mortal blow.

More from Glenn Greenwald:

The U.S. and its "friends" in the Western and business worlds are more than able and happy to severely punish anyone they want without the slightest basis in "law." That's what the lawless, Wild Western World is: political leaders punishing whomever they want without any limits, certainly without regard to bothersome concepts of "law." Anyone who doubts that should just look at what has been done to Wikileaks and Assange over the last week. In this series of events, there are indeed genuine and pernicious threats to basic freedom and security; they most assuredly aren't coming from WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.

Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky

Statements from military and government sources that everyone must pretend that the emperor is still fully clothed are blind, delusional authoritarianism and do not lend credibility to the speakers.

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.

Columbia University Reverses Anti-WikiLeaks Guidance | Threat Level | Wired.com

These organisms are not completely different in their chemical makeup from what we already know.

From what I can tell, the microbes prefer to live "normally" but may insert arsenic as a substitute for phosphorus when conditions demand it -- arsenic can play the same role that phosphorus would play under normal circumstances. This is a great novelty. Arsenic is bigger and heavier than phosphorus, and its compounds are less stable. These organisms would not have done this unless they didn't have any other choice. Just like Dr. Gerald Joyce, who was quoted in the New York Times today, I feel sorry for these creatures.

What does NASA's new life-form discovery mean? - Science - Salon.com

I previously described the WikiLeaks event as consequence free. Carne Ross disagrees, going so far as to predict that this might result in a violent revolution in Egypt.

The presumption that governments can conduct their business in secret with one another, out of sight of the populations they represent, died this week. Diplomats and officials around the world are slowly realizing that anything they say may now be one day published on the Internet...

If a government as technically sophisticated and well protected as the US can suffer a breach of this magnitude, no government is safe...

The only way for governments to save their credibility is to end that divide and at last to do what they say, and vice versa, with the assumption that nothing they may do will remain secret for long. The implications of this shift are profound, and indeed historic.

And not necessarily good, if the result is merely a decrease in the candor of international dialog.

Carne Ross: The End of Diplomacy As We Know It

But Crowley did rule out more aggressive action against WikiLeaks. When asked "is any action going to be taken that could involve" an "extra-legal process such as renditions or a one-way trip for Assange to Guantanamo Bay, Crowley replied: "No."

The State Department has officially stated they are not going to run a black bag op on wikileaks, which many senior Republicans have been agitating for.

Republicans slam White House over WikiLeaks response | Politics and Law - CNET News