Wikileaks background:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024578-38.html

---

Fox News interview transcript
December 7, 2010

JENNA LEE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Here to talk more about WIKILEAKS and a
whole bunch of issues happening in D.C. right now, is Independent
Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He's also Chairman of the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and he sits on
the Armed Services Committee. So he's a busy man. And we're glad to
have you today, Senator, thank you so much.

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I) CONNECTICUT: Glad to be with you, thank you.

LEE: So Steve Centanni just showed us a sound bite from P.J. Crowley
talking about, the fact that what WIKILEAKS has done is a crime under
U.S. law. What do you think of the justice department's action so far
not to charge Julian Assange with treason?

LIEBERMAN: Uh, I don't understand why that hasn't happened yet. I
mean, we can go back to the earlier dump of classified documents
mostly related to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that occurred in
July, and to me that was a violation of the espionage as well--act as
well.

Certainly now I think it's time to, for the justice department -- I'm
not there. I understand every attorney general has to make a judgment
call, but I'm a former state attorney general. It sure looks to me on
the facts that Mr. Assange and WIKILEAKS have violated America's
Espionage Act with great negative consequences for us. He ought to be
indicted, and then we can ask the authorities in England to extradite
him here to the United States. If we don't do that, somebody else will
come along and do exactly what WIKILEAKS has done, and that'll hurt
America even more.

LEE: So what do you think is going on? Why do you think that the
justice department hasn't moved forward? Does it have something to do
with politics?

LIEBERMAN: I don't think it has anything to do with politics, I sure
hope not. I think there's probably an argument going on among the
lawyers there about whether this is technically a violation of the
act. But I mean, this guy, essentially -- first, there is a private,
Private Manning, who we think is the source of most of this material,
gave it, downloaded it, took it off classified web sites of ours, gave
it to WIKILEAKS, he's being held in a military brig, and he's going to
face a court-martial.

So you start with a charge by the military that a crime was
committed. It seems to me that the consequence -- this is stolen
material. Stolen classified material that WIKILEAKS got from people
and then put out on the internet. With--I mean, I think it's the most
serious violation of the Espionage Act in our history, and the
consequences globally that have occurred. So I hope we're soon going
to hear from the attorney general that Mr. Assange is under indictment
and that he comes before an American court.

LEE: Speaking of the seriousness of this, Julian Assange has written
an editorial that points out or characterizes his organization as an
underdog in the media world. And he's saying that he's a journalist,
and he's just providing information out there for the world citizens
to see. He mentions that organizations like the New York times have
published his information which you're classifying as state secret. So
are other media outlets that have posted what WIKILEAKS has put out
there also culpable in this, and could be charged with something?

LIEBERMAN: I have said that I believe the question you're raising is a
serious legal question that has to be answered. In other words, this
is very sensitive stuff because it gets into the America's first
amendment.

But if you go from the initial crime, Private Manning charged with the
crime of stealing these classified documents, he gives them to
WIKILEAKS, I certainly believe that that's a -- WIKILEAKS has
violated the Espionage Act. But then what about the news organizations
including The Times that accepted it and distributed it? I know they
say they deleted some of it, but I'm not here to make a final judgment
on that. But to me New York Times has committed at least an act of bad
citizenship. And whether they've committed a crime, I think that bears
very intensive inquiry by the justice department. And, again, why do
you prosecute crimes? Because if you don't, well, first you do because
that's what our system of justice requires. Second, if you don't
prosecute people who commit crimes, others are going to do it soon and
again. And I'm afraid that's what's going to happen here.

[END EXCERPT]