I enjoyed the story and the ACLU's efforts. But, I was dismayed that Brooke never asked how the ACLU knows what criteria the State Dept. used to redact anything? How can they know that the State Dept, knowing the bind that they were in, didn't just redact more or less randomly. Even if it seems unlikely, it seems worthwhile pursuing this. Otherwise, we are at risk of celebrating how smart we are and claiming we know more than we do.

Rather than tossing softballs during this interview, it would have been interesting if Ms. Gladstone had asked Mr. Wizner his response to what might be considered an analogous situation:
Through an illegal search and seizure, government officials obtain a criminal defendant's documents in which s/he admits to the crime. A blogger gets access to the documents and makes them public. We all know what the documents say. Should the defendant's counsel have to concede the admissibility of the documents? Should the prosecution be able to argue that since the information is now public, there can be no basis for excluding the documents from evidence at trial? Should a judge or jury convict regardless of the exclusion because they and we the public know the defendant is guilty?
I strongly suspect Mr. Wizner would say the 4th Amendment right should prevail and that the evidence should be excluded, i.e., treated as if it never were illegal obtained, and the defendant should be tried solely on the basis of evidence admissible in that court. Yet, he would deny the government's similar (though admittedly not constitutional) right to contend that the WikiLeaks are the fruit of the poisonous tree and should not cut off its right to treat diplomatic secrets as if they had not been illegally obtained.