Newest Wikileaks outrage: Lets tell al-Qaeda everything we know about them!

The documents, provided to European and U.S. news outlets, including The Washington Post, are intelligence assessments of nearly every one of the 779 individuals who have been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2002. In them, analysts have created detailed portraits of detainees based on raw intelligence, including material gleaned from interrogations.

Detainees are assessed "high," "medium" or "low" in terms of their intelligence value, the threat they pose while in detention and the continued threat they might pose to the United States if released.

The documents tend to take a bleak view of the detainees, even those who have been ordered released by the federal courts because of a lack of evidence to justify their continued detention. And the assessments are often based, in part, on reporting by informants at the military detention center, sources that some judges have found wanting.

In a statement, the Pentagon, which described the decision to publish some of the material as "unfortunate," stressed the incomplete and snapshot nature of the assessments, known as Detainee Assessment Briefs, or DABs.

So, "the incomplete and snapshot nature of the assessments, known as Detainee Assessment Briefs" would seem to indicate that there is more intel that hasn't been revealed that would give a fuller picture of the terrorist's guilt, right?

The New York Times doesn't seem to care:

A trove of more than 700 classified military documents provides new and detailed accounts of the men who have done time at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba, and offers new insight into the evidence against the 172 men still locked up there.

Military intelligence officials, in assessments of detainees written between February 2002 and January 2009, evaluated their histories and provided glimpses of the tensions between captors and captives. What began as a jury-rigged experiment after the 2001 terrorist attacks now seems like an enduring American institution, and the leaked files show why, by laying bare the patchwork and contradictory evidence that in many cases would never have stood up in criminal court or a military tribunal.

The documents meticulously record the detainees' "pocket litter" when they were captured: a bus ticket to Kabul, a fake passport and forged student ID, a restaurant receipt, even a poem. They list the prisoners' illnesses - hepatitis, gout, tuberculosis, depression. They note their serial interrogations, enumerating - even after six or more years of relentless questioning - remaining "areas of potential exploitation." They describe inmates' infractions - punching guards, tearing apart shower shoes, shouting across cellblocks. And, as analysts try to bolster the case for continued incarceration, they record years of detainees' comments about one another.

It's entirely innocent they are, M'Lord. And the Times is willing to bet your life that they are.

The government isn't even bothering to make much of a stink anymore. Julian Assange and his hacker buddies have the US national security and diplomatic establishment by the short hairs and he knows it. He toys with them like a cat playing with a doomed mouse, cheered on by leftists around the world who like nothing better than to see US secrets spilled all over the front pages of newspapers.

How this will affect the disposition of key cases arising from the Guantanamo interrogations is unknown. My guess is that some of the remaining detainees will be impossible to try in a civil court as Eric Holder would like. A fair hearing is doubtful with so much information about the accused in the public domain.