Are Guardian editors guilty of criminal conspiracy?

The Guardian’s deep involvement with WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange, has shown the paper and its editors in all their hubris, possessing, at the very least, a palpable indifference to U.S. and British national security and the potential ramifications of revealing classified state secrets.

The leaks have even included secret documents containing a list of key U.S. installations around the world which, if targeted by terrorists, could have a potentially “debilitating impact on security, national economic security, [or] national public health.”¬† As such, there are even calls by some in the U.S. Congress to list WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization.

The following CiF Watch video reveals the Guardian’s role in not just participating in Assange’s plot but, rather, orchestrating what could reasonably be characterized as a conspiracy to release classified information – acts which have been characterized by U.S. officials as nothing less than criminal.

10 replies »

  1. excellent summary of this detailed description (read past the initial swooning on Assange, after that it becomes really interesting)

    I don’t know about conspiracy but it certainly is a slap in the face in the context of a special relationship – but when you believe yourself to be the undoubtedly righteous you are allowed to do whatever you think right, n’est-ce pas?

  2. The Guardian staff would sell their grandmothers on ebay if the price was right.

    I don’t have knowledge of the law, but if disseminating the information amounts to criminal conspiracy then yes they are.

    As for the rest, well they are shown to be the mendacious, double-dealing, self-interested pieces of trash that we know them to be. Plus ca change.

  3. “Are Guardian editors guilty of criminal conspiracy?” Well, probably not, judging from these two reports: and

    They’re both rather interesting and, although they’re about Wikileaks, apply equally to the Guardian.

    You say that the acts have been characterised as criminal, whereas the stance of the Defence Department is the “classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately.” This means that it’s the HOLDING of documents that’s a crime, rather than the dissemination.

    I’m not sure what crime the US could charge the Guardian with, and, judging by the fact you don’t list a crime in your blog post, you don’t seem to either.

  4. “what could reasonably be characterized as a conspiracy to release classified information”

    Sorry, ignore the last part of my previous comment. It’s too late for this, obviously. Still, I stand by the rest of the comment.

  5. Well done CifWatch.

    @paperback: Seems like the crime is the passing on of the classified information, ironically, not so much the publishing of the classified information. The Guardian passed it to the NYTimes prior to publishing, they spread known classified information. The only reason the guardian did it was to spread the guilt. Seems awfully clear cut to me.

  6. They’ve spread the information but, as I say, is that actually a crime? And “spreading the guilt” is an awfully cynical way of putting it: I’m not sure passing on information was a bum-covering exercise and could have been more about freedom of information.

  7. in my everyday world to pass on/to resell knowingly stolen goods and information are goods in a newspaper context is considered reprehensible and as best I know material for courts to decide on.

    High minded “freedom of information” drivel shouldn’t be used as a cover for the basics.

    Wikileaks may bode a game changer, let’s hope it’ll be one for the good, though my bet is that it’ll make times to come way too “interesting” for my taste.

  8. Isn’t The Guardian subject to the law of England and Wales? The documents aren’t British.

    The person to really pronounce on this is perhaps Derek Pasquill.