––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted August 02, 2010
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
White House: Don't post more secret war papers

WASHINGTON (AP) § The White House is imploring the website Wikileaks not to post any more classified documents about the Afghanistan war, saying U.S. national security and Afghan lives are at risk.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs says the leak of some 90,000 secret military documents already has jeopardized the lives of Afghans working with the U.S. and its war allies. Gibbs says the Taliban has declared it will comb the documents for the names of people who have cooperated with international forces in Afghanistan.
Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, Gibbs said the release of another 15,000 documents reportedly still held by Wikileaks would do more damage. Gibbs says the White House "can do nothing but implore the person who has the documents not to post any more."
Published: Mon, Aug 2, 2010
headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- This LA lawyer levels up legal protections in the video game industry
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Legal champions to receive Spirit of Excellence Award at 2026 ABA Midyear Meeting
- Fake Sullivan & Cromwell entities used by scammers should be dissolved, suit says
- Hackers gained access to ‘small number’ of attorney emails at Williams & Connolly, firm confirms
- Before joining Anderson Kill, judge was accused of rude behavior on bench, retaliatory threats in ethics case