After having read Schoenfeld's article, I am somewhat split on how I feel towards what WikiLeaks does. I believe it is important to not only take opinion into the matter, but also the legal aspect. In my case these two aspets contradict each other.
When looking at WikiLeaks from a legal standpoint, it seems clear to me that Julian Assange and anyone else associated with WikiLeaks are innocent. In Schoenfeld's article he clearly states that in order for them to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 Assange must have intended for the information to hurt the U.S; however, it would be extremely hard to prove this point. Personally, I don't think Assange's goal was to hurt America; he almost certainly just felt that the citizens of the U.S. should know what's going on in there own country. When this as well as the first amendment are considered, I think it's clear that Assange is innocent in a court of law.
Despite how I feel about WikiLeaks and Assange from a legal standpoint, personally I think that he had no right to publish classified documents without government permission. Assange can't know the repercussions of his work. Assange may have unknowingly killed an American spy or gave away the position of American troops. In return, all that is gained is information that the public will forget within a month. In my opinion Assange was and is too impulsive in how he runs WikiLeaks, and I completely disagree with the idea of a website that releases classified information.
