'Non-state-sponsored spying'

Throughout its history, the United States has gone all-out to obfuscate, disrupt, infiltrate and intercept the activities of spy agencies from other countries hostile to our interests. WikiLeaks, the online enterprise that has been maliciously dumping classified documents on the Internet, should be treated the same.

WikiLeaks should be regarded as a non-state-sponsored spy agency, just as al-Qaida should have been regarded as a non-state enemy, rather than a mere criminal organization, prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Indeed, WikiLeaks should have had the serious attention of the U.S. government well before its latest indiscriminate disclosure of sensitive, confidential and classified material. Four months ago, it released more than 75,000 stolen and classified documents, some which revealed the identifies of more than 100 Afghans who have been cooperating with the U.S. military. Last month, it dumped 390,000 classified documents on American operations in Iraq.

The latest posting of thousands of diplomatic cables that were stolen from the U.S. State Department made it even more clear that the country has extreme and intolerable vulnerabilities that harm national security and have enormous diplomatic costs.

It is true that many of the documents are mundane and relay the obvious, such as that American officials suspect corruption in the Afghan government or that we know wealthy Saudis are still funding al-Qaida.

But the overwhelming crime here is the sheer volume of materials being posted indiscriminately for the world to see, and the fact that they were never intended to be disclosed. With so much material broadcast around the planet, it is difficult to assess what harm subtle bits of information could cause. Consider that some documents reveal, for example, that Yemen’s political leaders have provided cover for the U.S. by claiming responsibility for American military operations in their country. So much for that. With that kind of potential exposure, why would any country cooperate with the U.S. on sensitive matters?

So why does it seem the U.S. government has been so docile, so passive in its response, particularly when WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange has said there is more to come?

“We’re only one-thousandth of the way in and look at what has so far been revealed. There will be many more,” he told ABC News this week from a clandestine location thought to be in England.

That’s a bold statement, especially when one considers how the U.S. has dealt with spies in the  past.

Surely our national security agencies or the military have cyber warfare capabilities, and it is possible they have been deployed, because WikiLeaks servers were severely disrupted last week by hacking attacks. But it seems there needs to be a prosecutorial response as well.

So where is the Justice Department in all of this?

Some have suggested that Assange and his cohorts be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. But others say using a law crafted at a time when telephones were barely replacing telegraphs cannot be enforced in this case.

Well, if that’s the case, Attorney General Eric Holder and his army of lawyers should have been working on legislation that would be effective for Congress to  consider. These document dumps have been occurring for months, and to just wait around for more is unacceptable.