According to government officials, lawyers from the Pentagon  believe that online whistleblower group WikiLeaks acted illegally in disclosing thousands of classified Afghanistan war reports and other material, and federal prosecutors are exploring possible criminal charges.

There is a joint investigation by the Army and the Federal Bureau of Investigation still in its early stages.  They are trying to decide what course the Department of Justice is going to take.

Government officials have previously said that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had not been named by the FBI as a target of the probe.

In late July, WikiLeaks posted some 76,000 classified military documents on its website, the largest such disclosure since the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. It has promised that there are another 15,000 documents coming from the cache it obtained. The disclosure made the Pentagon’s collective heads spin around.  The Pentagon warned that the release could endanger allies in Afghanistan and undercut the war effort.

Defense and Justice departments are exploring legal options for prosecuting Assange and others involved on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property.

Bringing a case against WikiLeaks would be a complicated matter.  It would potentially alienate Obama from his Far-Left voter base through the fact that Scooter and his administration would be pursuing not just government leakers, but organizations that disseminate their information.

The Pentagon is ratcheting up their tone in an effort to dissuade WikiLeaks from posting online the remaining documents.

Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson sent a letter this week to a WikiLeaks lawyer.  In it he wrote:

It is the view of the Department of Defense that WikiLeaks obtained this material in circumstances that constitute a violation of United States law, and that as long as WikiLeaks holds this material, the violation of the law is ongoing,” The letter did not spell out what those circumstances were.

People in-the-know said investigators and government lawyers were looking at whether WikiLeaks pressured army intelligence analyst Pfc. Bradley Manning to leak the Afghan war logs after the soldier provided the group with a classified Iraq video.

It that is the case, prosecutors will certainly pursue charges against WikiLeaks, legal experts said.

The head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, Steven Aftergood, said U.S. law gives prosecutors a number of tools they could use to prosecute WikiLeaks, for instance, alleging the group was an accessory to a crime or had unlawfully taken possession of stolen property.   He said if WikiLeaks actively encouraged the transfer of classified documents, the government could allege the group was part of a conspiracy,

The big question is whether WikiLeaks should be given the same legal protections as a “traditional” media outlet.

According to legal experts, the government may treat WikiLeaks differently because of the way it gathers and publishes information.  Its website actively solicits classified material and promises leaking is “safe, easy and protected by law.”

Traditional news organizations rarely publish information wholesale without first consulting the government to authenticate the information and to ensure it doesn’t compromise national security. WikiLeaks’ conveniently ignores that prudent step.

Mr. Aftergood said:

If WikiLeaks thought it would make the last move and the government would not respond, they may be mistaken .   But it would be a terrible new precedent if these legal options were actually employed against a publisher, even a disreputable one. Once such measures were used against WikiLeaks, it would only be a matter of time until they are used against other media outlets and individuals.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said:

We believe at a minimum that WikiLeaks has behaved in a reckless and irresponsible manner.

WikiLeaks lawyer, Timothy Matusheski, said he had been told by a member of the Army Criminal Investigative Division unit investigating the case that Mr. Assange, an Australian national, “was not a subject or target of any investigation.”

The U.S. law-enforcement official said that Mr. Assange was not a target, but Mr. Johnson’s letter may signal a shift, at least in terms of the Pentagon’s thinking.

Mr. Matusheski said:

They accuse him [Assange] of breaking the law.  But they haven’t said what law.

22 year-old Pfc. Manning worked in intelligence operations in Baghdad.  His job was to examine intelligence relevant to Iraq, but defense officials said Pfc. Manning used his “Top Secret/SCI” clearance to tap into documents around the world.

Pfc. Manning was charged by the military in July with illegally taking secret State Department files and disseminating the classified video, later released by WikiLeaks, showing a U.S. military helicopter firing on a group of people in Baghdad. Two Reuters journalists and seven other people were killed in the 2007 incident.

Michael Moore, the Oscar-winning filmmaker and embarrassing slob, announced in his own attention-seeking way, that he will contribute $5,000 to Manning’s Defense Fund. 

Moore told The Associated Press in a telephone interview he also hopes to make the public understand that Pfc. Bradley Manning exposed what Moore called “war crimes.”:

He did a courageous thing and he did a patriotic thing.

Manning faces up to 52 years in prison if convicted.

Meanwhile, Julian Assange is suspected of rape in Sweden, where authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest, officials said yesterday.

The 39-year-old Assange denied the allegations on WikiLeaks’ Twitter page, saying they “are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing.”

Assange, who has sought Swedish legal protection for his website, is suspected of molestation and rape in two separate cases, according to Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority.

Rosander told The Associated Press:

He should get in contact with police so that he can be confronted with the suspicions.

She said a prosecutor in Stockholm issued the arrest warrant on Friday. That means that means police are ordered to seek his arrest as part of an investigation but doesn’t necessarily mean that criminal charges will be filed.

Regarding the war documents, if the United States Government goes after WikiLeaks or  Assange personally, things are going to get complicated.  Not only is Assange not an American, according to Mr. Matusheski:

I don’t know [if] WikiLeaks has a presence in the United States except for a website.

The classified documents cover the Afghan war from 2004 through 2009. The Pentagon this week told WikiLeaks to go jump when they boldly requested  help in reviewing the remaining documents.  They demanded that WikiLeaks instead return all of the logs to the U.S. government.

The Pentagon said the 15,000 additional documents, like the initial batch, contained the names of Afghans who have helped the U.S. war effort and who could be targeted by the Taliban if their identities were made public.  Officials have continued to play down the impact of the leak on military strategy, saying they did not reveal anything new.

Have you ever looked at someone, and the first word that pops in your head is weasel?  When I saw  the pictures of Assange and Pfc. Manning, that word popped into my head.  When I watched Fox News and read about this life-threatening publicity stunt, other words and phrases popped into my head, also:   phrases like enemy of America, publicity hound, and playing at being a journalist, and words like traitor, treason, and hanging.

Like other Progressives, Assange is too wrapped up in his own self-righteousness to be worried about what effect his actions will have on others’ lives.   Hmmm..now, who does that remind you of?

UPDATE:   The warrant against Assange for rape has been withdrawn.   Chief prosecutor Eva Finné said in a statement explaining her decision:

I do not consider there to be any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.

Then why did the Swedes issue the warrant in the first place?  Hmmm.

 UPDATE 2:   Karin Rosander, spokeswoman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said that after a new prosecutor looked at the allegations, the arrest warrant was withdrawn because the severity of the case does not require an arrest at this stage.

Stranger and stranger.