WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

"The CLA points out that article 13 of the UN Principles on the Role of Lawyers sets out clearly that 'lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions'."

Australia House denies role in Assange lawyer travel drama
(By Bryce Lowry, Australian Times, 20 April, 2012)

THE Australian lawyer of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wants the federal government to find out why airport staff told her she was on a watch list needing special approval to return to Australia.

Jennifer Robinson was on Wednesday stopped at Heathrow from boarding a plane to Australia, on her way to the Commonwealth Regional Law Conference in Sydney.

Airport security told the lawyer that she “must have done something controversial”, and that they would need to contact the Australian High Commission (in London) before admitting her on to the flight, which she was later allowed to board.

Australia House though, denied they had been contacted by UK authorities about the matter.

The Guardian reported on Thursday that an Australian department of foreign affairs spokesman said: “We are aware of claims by Jennifer Robinson, a member of Julian Assange’s legal team, that she was prevented by UK border authorities from boarding a flight in London because her travel was in some way ‘inhibited’, and that she would not be able to travel without prior approval from Australian officials.

“As the department of immigration and citizenship confirmed publicly earlier today, no Australian government agency prevented Ms Robinson from boarding her flight at London’s Heathrow airport. We are not aware of any Australian government restrictions applying to Ms Robinson’s travel.

“As an Australian with a valid passport, Ms Robinson would be free to return to Australia at any stage.

“The Australian High Commission in London has no record of a call being received from UK authorities concerning her travel.

Addressing lawyers at the Commonwealth Regional Law Conference on Friday, Jennifer Robinson said Heathrow staff had told her that she was on an “inhibited travel list” and is still demanding an explanation.

“I have not heard a thing from the Australian government,” Ms Robinson said after the conference in Sydney.

“The position, as I understand it, is that they don’t know what it is, they have got nothing to do with it and, as far as they’re concerned, it’s not their problem,” Ms Robinson said.

She believes she may be in danger because the public has confused her actions with those of her client, who is waiting to find out whether he will be extradited to Sweden to face sex crime allegations.

Ms Robinson said she told Mr Assange of the airport incident in a brief conversation on Thursday night.

“I think he is concerned and very interested as to why this happened and why it would happen now,” she said.

“There have been issues around the world with those associated with WikiLeaks having issues in airports and he likes to be kept apprised of things if they do happen.”

Australia’s Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, who spoke at the conference earlier on Friday, said the government had no knowledge of the travel restrictions until Ms Robinson herself found out.

Ms Robinson said she expected Australia to seek answers on whether she had been placed on any governmental watch list or why any Australian citizen would need to be cleared by the embassy before boarding a plane.

“The way it has been described to me is that the word ‘inhibited’ is one that is used only by US homeland security … but I simply do not know,” she said.

Ms Roxon said Department of Foreign Affairs officials were speaking to UK authorities to understand what happened at the airport.

This case is not the daily grind of the law courts.

It's on a fault line.

John McCain's 2008 campaign staff allegedly had evidence that Democrats stuffed ballot boxes in Pennsylvania and Ohio on election night, but McCain chose not to pursue voter fraud, according to internal Stratfor emails published by WikiLeaks.

In an email sent on November 7, 2008, and titled " Insight - The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only - Pls Do Not Forward **," Stratfor vice president of intelligence Fred Burton wrote:

1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to "out".

In an email sent two days earlier and titled "Insight - McCain #5 ** internal use only - Pls do not forward **," Burton wrote:

After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff's desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.

The Nov. 7 email also contains allegations that Democrats made a "six-figure donation" to Rev. Jesse Jackson to silence him on the topic of Israel after an October 2008 interview in which he said Obama’s presidency would remove the clout of “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades.”

Burton, who appears to be friendly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote:

2) It appears the Dems "made a donation" to Rev. Jesse (no, they would never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel. A little bird told me it was a "nice six-figure donation". This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

The email also refers to an accusation that Obama's campaign took money from Russia, recalling memories of Bill Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign when the Justice Department uncovered evidence that China sought to make direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee.

Burton wrote:

3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

If true the allegations prompt questions of how the fallout has affected the politics of Obama's current administration and how it will effect this year's presidential election.

Interestingly, Mitt Romney is also facing allegations of voter fraud in Massachusetts as he cast a ballot for Republican Scott Brown in January 2010 in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy but didn’t own property in the state at the time.

Romney registered to vote listing his son’s unfinished basement as his residence, but the Romneys' former realtor told GOP consultant Fred Karger that they moved to California. Anyone found guilty of committing voter fraud faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


Burton is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State's counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). The DSS assists the Department of Defense in following leads and doing forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the U.S. government in ongoing criminal investigations.

Stratfor provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations and government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.

WikiLeaks has published 973 out of what it says is a cache of 5 million internal Stratfor emails (dated between July 2004 and December 2011) obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous around Christmas

Four years later and this is the first we're hearing of it?

McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country

The argument that he put lives at risk strikes me as fatuous

WikiLeaks has published 973 out of what it says is a cache of 5 million internal Stratfor emails (dated between July 2004 and December 2011) obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous around Christmas

... Despite the governmental ties, Stratfor and similar companies operate in complete secrecy with no political oversight or accountability. Stratfor claims that it operates "without ideology, agenda or national bias", yet the emails reveal private intelligence staff who align themselves closely with US government policies and channel tips to the Mossad – including through an information mule in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Yossi Melman, who conspired with Guardian journalist David Leigh to secretly, and in violation of WikiLeaks’ contract with the Guardian, move WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables to Israel.

Manning presses for dismissal of charges
(By Josh Levs and Larry Shaughnessy, CNN.com, April 24, 2012)

Pfc. Bradley Manning returns to court Tuesday to push for all charges against him to be dropped.

Manning is the Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military and state department documents while serving in Iraq. Many of those documents ended up on the WikiLeaks website.

His attorneys filed two motions last week. One pushes for all charges against Manning to be dismissed. If that fails, the second pushes for some charges to be dropped.

The latter filing argues that the defense should be allowed to review "grand jury materials" that are in the possession of military authorities.

Manning's attorneys put redacted versions of the two motions online. The website, from the law offices of David E. Coombs, explains that the government "has opposed the public filing of motions due to concerns over revealing protected information. In response to the government's concerns, the defense has voluntarily redacted its motions in areas where the government opposes public release of the referenced information."

Oral arguments over those and other motions from both sides will take place during what's expected to be a three-day hearing.

Coombs, a private attorney whose fees have been paid by Manning supporters around the world, has tried previously to get the charges dismissed.

Prosecutors have said they've complied with rules governing the mandatory disclosure of non-classified evidence. And they've argued that the court has not explained to them how they can disclose evidence categorized as classified.

Manning is facing charges including aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, transmitting national defense information and theft of public property or records. He could go to prison for life if convicted.

Coombs hasn't said whether he'll request a trial by a military judge, a panel of senior officers or a panel that includes one-third enlisted non-commissioned officers.

Judge refuses to dismiss Army private’s WikiLeaks case
(By DAVID DISHNEAU, The Associated Press, April 25, 2012)

Fort Meade, Md. • A military judge refused on Wednesday to throw out the charges against an Army private accused of providing reams of sensitive documents to Wikileaks in the biggest leak of government secrets in U.S. history.

Army Col. Denise Lind denied the defense motion to dismiss all 22 charges during a pretrial hearing in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning. The ruling means the hearing that’s mainly concerned with the exchange of evidence will continue. It’s scheduled to run through Thursday.

The defense has filed a separate motion seeking dismissal of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy. That offense carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Lind tentatively scheduled the trial to run from Sept. 21 through Oct. 12. Manning hasn’t entered a plea to the charges.

Manning is accused of sending hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to Wikileaks, the anti-secrecy website run by Julian Assange.

On Tuesday, the two sides engaged in a sometimes heated courtroom debate over defense claims that prosecutors haven’t met their obligation to provide Manning’s lawyers with evidence they uncover that could aid the defense, a process called discovery.

In seeking the dismissal, Manning’s lawyers had argued that prosecutors were so slow in sharing required information with the defense that the only remedy was to throw out the charges.

Prosecutors said they worked diligently to meet their obligations. They maintained that they needed time to obtain documents from civilian agencies and search the records for relevant material. They also accused the defense of making an overly broad, vague request for information.

Lind asked the prosecutors on Tuesday for several government assessments of potential damage caused by Wikileaks’ publication of the documents. She said she would review the assessments and determine whether they must be given to the defense team.

The 24-year-old Oklahoma native was ordered court-martialed after he was accused of downloading the documents, diplomatic cables and video clips, then sending them to WikiLeaks. He was working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad when authorities say he copied classified material from government computers in late 2009 and early 2010.

The material WikiLeaks published included cockpit video of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack that killed a number of civilians, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver. The U.S. government says the civilian deaths were accidental.

Manning has been in pretrial confinement since he was charged in May 2010. His treatment at a Marine Corps base caused support for him to swell. The Quantico, Va., brig commander kept Manning confined 23 hours a day in a single-bed cell, citing safety and security concerns. For several days in March 2011, he was forced to sleep naked, purportedly for injury prevention, before he was issued a suicide-prevention smock.

Manning’s supporters have raised funds to place posters in the Washington Metro subway system this week portraying him as a whistleblower, patriot and hero.

Should the First Amendment protect WikiLeaks, Assange, from prosecution relating to spreading classified information?
(Paul Janensch, Opinion Essay, Palm Beach News, April 30, 2012)

Should the First Amendment protect WikiLeaks?

The speaker was lawyer James Goodale, a prominent defender of free speech and a free press.

His lecture was entitled, "Should the First Amendment Protect WikiLeaks?" His answer was, "Yes."

My answer is, "It depends."

In my opinion, it depends on whether the government can make a persuasive case that the releasing of classified military and diplomatic documents by the Wiki-Leaks vigilante website posed a clear and present danger to national security and to Americans and their foreign contacts.

If the government cannot do that, then the First Amendment guarantee of free speech should protect WikiLeaks, and it will be difficult for the government to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange successfully if he is extradited to the United States.

Assange, a 40-year-old Australian, is in Britain and wanted in Sweden to face an allegation by one woman of rape and by another of sexual assault.

But if the U.S. government can provide convincing evidence to a court that what WikiLeaks seriously threatened our national security and the lives of individuals, then it's in Assange's interest to be represented by a really good attorney.

Goodale spoke April 19 to a packed hall at the Indian River State College main campus in Fort Pierce. The lecture was hosted by IRSC's Center for Media and Journalism Studies. I served on a panel that discussed the issue after the lecture.

Goodale, who represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, conceded that the publicity-hungry Assange is not a sympathetic figure and said he was troubled by the voluminous and indiscriminate dumping of confidential government documents by WikiLeaks.

But Goodale contended that WikiLeaks was exercising free speech even if many are outraged by its actions.

I agree with Goodale that WikiLeaks should not be prosecuted simply for releasing documents that embarrass the United States. The diplomatic cables contained statements about foreign governments for which the State Department had to apologize.

Joe Biden called Assange a "high-tech terrorist" and said world leaders now wanted to meet with the vice president without any of his staff, presumably to reduce the risk of having an aide write a disparaging report that would later become public.

"It makes things more cumbersome," said Biden.

I don't think making things more cumbersome is the equivalent of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the traditional justification for excluding speech from the protection of the First Amendment.

Robert Gates, who was secretary of defense at the time, said he was concerned about the revelation of military secrets to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but later said the release of the diplomatic cables did not trouble him. (Maybe because he was not secretary of state.)

I never thought there were grounds to prosecute The New York Times, even though it and selected newspapers in Europe were able to review the purloined military documents and diplomatic cables before WikiLeaks posted them for all the world to see.

The Times combed through the material, removed details that could put lives at risk and reported what was newsworthy.

However, I think there are grounds under the military code to prosecute Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is charged with giving government files to WikiLeaks.

During the question-and-answer period following the Goodale lecture, a man in the audience said he believes WikiLeaks jeopardized the lives of American military personnel in Iraq, including his son.

Is he correct? If so, can the government prove it?

During the question-and-answer period following the Goodale lecture, a man in the audience said he believes WikiLeaks jeopardized the lives of American military personnel in Iraq, including his son.

Is he correct? If so, can the government prove it?

Bradley Manning defence motion to drop charges denied at pretrial hearing
Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 April 2012 17.31 BST


Bradley Manning, right, is escorted by military police as he enters the courtroom at Fort Meade, Maryland for his court martial hearing on Wednesday. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

A military judge has refused to throw out the charges against US army private Bradley Manning, who is accused of the biggest leak of government secrets in the country's history.

Army colonel Denise Lind on Wednesday denied the defence motion to dismiss all 22 charges during a pretrial hearing in Manning's court martial.

Manning is accused of sending hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website run by Julian Assange.

The defence has filed a separate motion seeking dismissal of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Lind tentatively scheduled the trial to run from 21 September to 12 October. Manning has not entered a plea.

On Tuesday, the two sides engaged in a sometimes heated courtroom debate over defence claims that prosecutors haven't met their obligation to provide Manning's lawyers with evidence they uncover that could aid the defence, a process called discovery.

Manning's lawyers had argued that prosecutors were so slow in sharing required information with the defence that the only remedy was to throw out the charges.

Prosecutors maintained that they needed time to obtain documents from civilian agencies and search the records for relevant material. They also accused the defence of making an overly broad, vague request for information.

Lind asked the prosecutors on Tuesday for several government assessments of potential damage caused by WikiLeaks' publication of the documents. She said she would review the assessments and determine whether they must be given to the defence team. ...<cont>

Meanwhile, back to Bradley Manning's trial:

How long does the prosecution require to produce the necessary material for its case against Bradley Manning?
Manning has been in pretrial confinement since he was charged in May 2010!
This is a farce.
And surely, if the most serious charge against him is to be proved - that of "aiding the enemy" - then the prosecution is required to supply proof that this actually occurred?
Isn't that how a just legal system works?
Even in a military trial like this one.
The prosecution needs to establish its case to have any credibility, surely?

Quote:

Bradley Manning defence motion to drop charges denied at pretrial hearing
Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 April 2012 17.31 BST


Bradley Manning, right, is escorted by military police as he enters the courtroom at Fort Meade, Maryland for his court martial hearing on Wednesday. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

A military judge has refused to throw out the charges against US army private Bradley Manning, who is accused of the biggest leak of government secrets in the country's history.

Army colonel Denise Lind on Wednesday denied the defence motion to dismiss all 22 charges during a pretrial hearing in Manning's court martial.

Manning is accused of sending hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website run by Julian Assange.

The defence has filed a separate motion seeking dismissal of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Lind tentatively scheduled the trial to run from 21 September to 12 October. Manning has not entered a plea.

On Tuesday, the two sides engaged in a sometimes heated courtroom debate over defence claims that prosecutors haven't met their obligation to provide Manning's lawyers with evidence they uncover that could aid the defence, a process called discovery.

Manning's lawyers had argued that prosecutors were so slow in sharing required information with the defence that the only remedy was to throw out the charges.

Prosecutors maintained that they needed time to obtain documents from civilian agencies and search the records for relevant material. They also accused the defence of making an overly broad, vague request for information.

Lind asked the prosecutors on Tuesday for several government assessments of potential damage caused by WikiLeaks' publication of the documents. She said she would review the assessments and determine whether they must be given to the defence team. ...<cont>

Another look at WikiLeaks (Or not?)
(By Andrea de Sa, The Daily Princetonian, May 3rd, 2012)

The Princetonian’s readership already knows that WikiLeaks has raised various legal and moral questions, most of which remain unresolved. While it is important to respect the Princeton community’s diverse views on the larger issues surrounding WikiLeaks, it is equally important that students are aware of how using WikiLeaks may prevent them from obtaining governmental security clearances. Students are now facing an uncertain trade-off between academic integrity and future job opportunities. The University has been falling short in its responsibility to protect students who are opposed to using WikiLeaks.

Although the U.S. government has yet to articulate a clear stance on whether WikiLeaks can be used in academic settings, students seeking guidance on the matter are generally advised to err on the side of caution. Because WikiLeaks documents have not yet been officially declassified, actively pursuing and using these documents could flag students as security risks. The irony of this situation is that, while WikiLeaks provides a plethora of diplomatic, military and financial documents that are valuable to students interested in government service, the same students are self-censoring for fear of complicating their employment prospects.

Samantha, a student familiar with the security clearance process, warned that those planning on pursuing careers in government may be subject to counter-intelligence polygraphs, which ask non-explanatory yes-or-no questions about proper handling of classified materials. If the investigation reveals considerable traffic to leaked materials, it could jeopardize students’ chances for employment and later upward mobility.

Here, Samantha makes an important distinction: “Reading reporting about [WikiLeaks], even if it quotes the classified material, is fine. But actively pursuing and reading source documentation is an extremely bad idea.”

Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer agreed, quipping that WikiLeaks is so pervasive that “if the government decided it would never hire anyone who looked at WikiLeaks, it wouldn’t have any recruits!” Kurtzer said he believes that federal agencies will formally or informally pardon recruits who have accessed news reports on classified information or have had incidental access to leaked documents (for example, stumbling upon a WikiLeaks document transposed on a different website). “When you apply for a clearance, they will ask you whether you have accessed WikiLeaks. But their question really is ‘Have you affirmatively accessed WikiLeaks?’”

Wilson School professor Barton Gellman, who currently teaches WWS 465: Secrecy, Accountability and the National Security State has a more generous outlook. He agrees that it is safe to read secondary documents related to WikiLeaks, but after informally consulting White House and intelligence officials, Gellman has concluded that it is also safe to read WikiLeaks documents on Blackboard. “Even still,” he explained, “it feels unfair to compel a student to assume an uncertain burden, however slight.”

In the absence of an official University regulation on this matter, I reached out to Wilson School Dean Christina Paxson for her opinion. While clarifying that she could not comment on behalf of the University administration, Paxson explained that “students who are concerned that reading WikiLeaks cables could compromise their career prospects should not be compelled to do so.” She explained that not taking a stance on WikiLeaks gives the administration the latitude it needs to simultaneously protect students’ academic freedom and defend the relative few for whom WikiLeaks may pose a risk.

But here, many disagree. Do students have the right to self-censor?

This semester, Gellman changed his syllabus to accommodate students who did not want to read WikiLeaks cables. That being said, he has not yet decided whether he will require WikiLeaks in future classes: “There are courses, including mine, that probably should not be taught without classified-but-public materials on the syllabus. There are certainly research subjects that should not be undertaken without them. I would not agree, for example, to supervise a thesis on recent U.S. combat operations if the student were unwilling to read the Iraq and Afghanistan ‘War Logs.’ ” But even in situations where classified information is valuable but not necessary, Gellman questions whether we should be “comfortable with avoiding trouble on the grounds that we can do a creditable job on a given subject without WikiLeaks.”

Motivated by principles of academic integrity and veracity, University professors are increasingly requiring that students consult WikiLeaks documents for class assignments and to check the accuracy of their research — effectively penalizing self-censorship. They are confronted with quiet opposition from concerned students like Samantha. She argues that Princeton should instruct teachers not to design classes where reading primary source classified materials is mandatory unless explicitly stated in the course description. Others argue that the University should provide students more direct access to the University’s Legal Counsel, which is more adept to answer specific questions regarding classified information. Helping students make informed decisions is important. The University has been lagging behind in this respect.

Kurtzer echoes this concern. “Ideally,” he explained, “the University should make clear that students who use WikiLeaks do so at their own risk, and those who don’t will not be disadvantaged in any way — either in terms of grades or class selection.” He recommended instituting a policy in which students could decide whether to use classified documents and disclose their decisions in a foreword to their academic work, perhaps as an addendum to the Honor Code. The administration should communicate to professors that students should not be penalized for the decision not to use WikiLeaks, and professors should grade accordingly.

“Even if the government is derelict in its responsibility to have a good policy [on WikiLeaks use], the University can’t also be derelict — it has to find a way to protect students who are in this uncertain position,” Kurtzer said.

New Charges Added to Hacktivist Indictment
(Adam Klasfield, Courthouse News Service, May 4, 2012)

A new federal indictment against five men charged with being the hackers behind cyber-attacks against major media companies, governments around the world and private intelligence firms adds a prominent defendant, and a previously overlooked attack.

A criminal complaint against Jeremy Hammond, who went by the handles "Anarchaos," "sup_g," "burn," "yohoho," "POW," "tylerknowsthis" and "crediblethreat," was made public in March.

He was re-indicted on Wednesday, with a new charge of hack attacks against the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor.

The Stratfor hack produced more than 5 million emails, subsequently distributed by Wikileaks under the name "Global Intelligence Files."

They exposed details of federal surveillance of Occupy Wall Street, the possible existence of a sealed indictment of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and global media partnerships with private spies.

According to the new, 6-count indictment against Hammond and four other, the hacking created a windfall of media attention and credit-card spending sprees for the hackers.

Sifting through the private information of 860,000 Stratfor clients, hackers spent at least $700,000 using their credit cards, the indictment states.

This led to a new charge of aggregated identity theft.

Hammond's criminal complaint also details his involvement in traditional activism, detailing his history of protesting oil companies, political figures, the Chicago Olympics and, in one instance, a Holocaust denier.

"Hammond himself stated in an interview with the FBI that he intended to use hacking to fight for social justice," the original complaint stated.

This information did not appear in his new indictment.

But there are additional details about his hack into the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

Also named as defendants in the new indictment are Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis, Darren Martyn, and Donncha O'Cearrbhail.

The Princetonian’s readership already knows that WikiLeaks has raised various legal and moral questions, most of which remain unresolved. While it is important to respect the Princeton community’s diverse views on the larger issues surrounding WikiLeaks, it is equally important that students are aware of how using WikiLeaks may prevent them from obtaining governmental security clearances. Students are now facing an uncertain trade-off between academic integrity and future job opportunities. The University has been falling short in its responsibility to protect students who are opposed to using WikiLeaks.

... This semester, Gellman changed his syllabus to accommodate students who did not want to read WikiLeaks cables. That being said, he has not yet decided whether he will require WikiLeaks in future classes: “There are courses, including mine, that probably should not be taught without classified-but-public materials on the syllabus. There are certainly research subjects that should not be undertaken without them. I would not agree, for example, to supervise a thesis on recent U.S. combat operations if the student were unwilling to read the Iraq and Afghanistan ‘War Logs.’ ” But even in situations where classified information is valuable but not necessary, Gellman questions whether we should be “comfortable with avoiding trouble on the grounds that we can do a creditable job on a given subject without WikiLeaks.”