We will be hearing more about Wikileaks, as a report in today’s New York Times makes clear.

The deliberate release of what could be a classified document is “irresponsible and, if valid, could put U.S. military personnel at risk,” Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. military command in Baghdad, told the Times.

The document in question, if it is authentic — and there is no reason to believe it is not — shows that U.S. forces in Iraq were granted authority to enter Iran in hot pursuit of terrorists and former members of Saddam’s Hussein’s regime.

The document can be found at wikileaks.org. Wikileaks describes itself as “an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.” In support of their objectives, the organizers cite the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Pentagon Papers case “that only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.” “We agree,” they say.

Connecting the Dots does not agree, either with Wikileak’s purpose or with the implication that is actions are legal.

In the Pentagon Papers case the Supreme Court ruled against a prior restraint on the publication of the secrets turned over by Daniel Ellsberg to the New York Times. It left open the possibility of prosecution of the Times after publication.

Indeed, in his concurring opinion, Justice White (joined by Justice Stewart)wrote,

The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798,  also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States, as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States, and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.

There has never been a successful prosecution of a newspaper under the espionage statutes. But does Wikileaks qualify as a newspaper? Is it even part of the press? As leakers become emboldened by this new self-proclaimedly “untraceable” medium, this is a question that is going to be asked again and again.