I think we agree, I've been arguing the 'Equal protection' angle, which is to say that if Wikileaks is an enemy of the US then so is every journalistic outlet in the world. This is a general argument and says nothing about specific acts.
Now if you or I or a reporter or a Mossad agent or a IRG member seeks out someone with classified information and bribes, extorts, or otherwise induces that person to reveal it, that is espionage pure and simple. If the person doing the inducing has diplomatic immunity they are expelled, if the person who gave up the information is identified they are dealt with in either civil court or military court.
Over our history, we have chosen to separate that activity from people who are in possession of classified information that they feel proves or exposes some great injustice or cover up. And that person independently seeks out a reporting agency to bring the information to light and correct the injustice. We still prosecute the people who release that information but we haven't (traditionally) been able to prosecute the receiver of that information (and I'll reiterate that the Pentagon Papers case is a great exemplar here).
So the treatment here would seem to hinge on the motivation of the organization and how they came about to have possession of the classified information.
Now if you or I or a reporter or a Mossad agent or a IRG member seeks out someone with classified information and bribes, extorts, or otherwise induces that person to reveal it, that is espionage pure and simple. If the person doing the inducing has diplomatic immunity they are expelled, if the person who gave up the information is identified they are dealt with in either civil court or military court.
Over our history, we have chosen to separate that activity from people who are in possession of classified information that they feel proves or exposes some great injustice or cover up. And that person independently seeks out a reporting agency to bring the information to light and correct the injustice. We still prosecute the people who release that information but we haven't (traditionally) been able to prosecute the receiver of that information (and I'll reiterate that the Pentagon Papers case is a great exemplar here).
So the treatment here would seem to hinge on the motivation of the organization and how they came about to have possession of the classified information.