There’s a very different perspective on the Assange case to the official and media versions. Ten years later, the Assange case is still hot in so many ways. It’s the publishing of leaked information which has so many implications for everyone in media.
I am NOT going to recite the entire Wikileaks/Assange saga. This article is about the ramifications for journalism, national security and relevant laws. There are so many critical issues for the future of journalism and even the publication of basic information. There are security issues, and a need for proper legal processes.
Leak theory, intelligence, historical perspective overview
Leaks from government sources are of two kinds; stolen information and deliberate leaks by government. The issue of attribution is complex in the deliberate leaks. Most governments deny leaks. Stolen info often comes from disgruntled employees and/or bona fide whistleblowers.
A few points:
• Deliberate leaks are covered up easily, ironically by security laws.
• Everyone else gets prosecuted to an almost maniacal level.
• One of the longest-running issues in journalism is legal defence for journalists and whistleblowers at law.
• No “democratic” country on Earth has enacted any protection against whistleblowers, nearly all of whom act in what they consider to be the public interest.
• Evidence requirements may expose whistleblowers and journalists to serious physical harm and death.
• No reform of evidence requirements has happened, either.
In terms of the case against Assange and Wikileaks:
• The Wikileaks legal case is a case against publication of a range of documents. The original case against Wikileaks was that publication put people at risk and that documents were classified.
• Ten years later, the question is now who or what was put at risk and was there any harm done by publication? If not, that undermines the case against Assange considerably. The basis of the charge can be said to be proven wrong by historical facts.
• The classification of the documents is also highly questionable. Can all the Wikileaks documents have been classified? If so, to what level? The point here is that publishing top security documents may well be an offence; publication of lower classifications isn’t.
The whole idea of modern journalism is based entirely on the publication of information. The theory is that the information published is accurate. Pseudo-journalism and fake news factories sponsored by governments aren’t subject to this theory.
So – If the job of journalism is to publish current information, Assange is a top award-winning journalist. That means that the legal issues of the Assange/Wikileaks case relate directly to the functions of journalism in just about every possible form.
Journalism and espionage are not the same things, by legal definition. This is a case in which publication, not espionage, is the crime.
The legal status of the information published by Wikileaks is another issue. The fact that actual security was so lax regarding the information published by Wikileaks is also relevant. If this information was so critically important, why wasn’t the security at least up to basic Main Street commercial standards?
The whistleblower issue is also very much to the point. Neither Chelsea Manning nor Assange can be accused of profiting from this exercise. Nor did foreign powers seem to benefit from publication to any extent worth mentioning in the case supporting prosecution. They’re at most whistleblowers, not spies.
(Real espionage is a very big money business, not just spies running around shooting each other in front of cameras. Classified information has serious big money value. Either you’re a spy or you’re a journalist, is the point, and you can’t really be both at the Wikileaks level.)
Double standards galore – What journalism is all about
One of the most basic legal principles is the theory of harm. All law is based on dealing with some sort of legal injury. Is it an offence to publish actual information?
Apparently it’s OK for “news media” to publish QAnon garbage, sycophantic FOX babble, defamatory lies, and insane conspiracy theories as truth and not one prosecution has arisen in all these years. …And that’s fine with everyone, including the courts and lawmakers?
Fake news undercut real information on an hourly basis for the last four years. Fake news was an actual function of government during the Trump years. Anything at all could be called fake news, and someone would believe it or claim to believe it was fake.
That worked out so well for America, didn’t it? It turned into a highly destructive four-year virtual civil war, and the law didn’t even blink. Nobody got prosecuted for publishing such harmful pseudo-journalism. This is why you need real journalism, to debunk this crap.
Good journalism is supposed to be about breaking news that is highly important and relevant. Investigative journalism is often part of this process.
For example:
• Balanced journalism is supposed to include reports, counter reports, and commentary to form a clear picture of what’s happening and who’s saying what about it.
• Consistency and verification of collateral information is also critical. If a nuclear weapon is detonated, you’d expect a lot of damage, dead people, etc. Did something actually happen, yes or no?
• So – If you’re a journalist and someone gives you all this information, what are you supposed to do with it? This information was current. It related to major global issues. Do you therefore not publish it?
• Say you’re a private citizen and you somehow don’t just simply believe that all government actions are right or legal. Do you get information like this and do nothing? Particularly if your personal beliefs are so highly involved?
• Should the public have information which affects its views of the conduct of government? If not, why not?
• Should illegal government actions be immune to scrutiny by courts? Or do courts have nothing better to do with their time than ignore breaches of law?
The Assange case has turned more and more into a counterproductive legal atrocity. Various governments, notably the United States, Australia, and Sweden, have gone to great lengths to shoot the messenger.
Nothing of the slightest value to anyone has been achieved by this epic absurdity. An “act of journalism” has become an implied major crime, with no indication of serious harm.
In the past, a virtual busload of US citizens who sold US nuclear and military secrets to the USSR were treated far more leniently. They certainly weren’t threatened with 170-year sentences. They made a lot of money out of selling those secrets, too.
The Wikileaks case has been blown out of all proportion in any possible legal interpretation. Assange has been subjected to unprecedented, vindictive treatment for far less reason than in cases of actual prosecutions for treason.
Summary
Leaks happen all the time and always will. Wikileaks simply streamlined the leak process. If it wasn’t Wikileaks, someone else would definitely have published all that material.
• Mainstream news outlets did publish a lot of Wikileaks-sourced material, and were not prosecuted. Nor was there any mention of possible prosecution. Where is the line drawn on what’s prosecutable and what’s not?
• Despite the risks of fake news and pseudo-journalism, Western governments continue to make the job of journalism as difficult as possible.
• Whistleblowers are not protected at all, nor are journalists, despite clearly acting in the public interest.
This can’t go on. In the era of digital journalism, the “right to know” has been supplemented with a very serious, survival-based, need to know. Despite four years of turning facts into an endangered species, the role of journalism is critical to the functions and even the sanity of any modern society.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the public interest is served, or it’s not. You’ve just seen what happens when it’s not. I don’t always agree with Assange. I do, however, see him as a serious test for democracy and free speech, to say nothing of the sane application of laws.
The Biden administration has appealed the UK block on extradition of Assange. This seems to mean that they are continuing this very dubious fossil-hunting exercise long after its expiry date. The information and the people involved have been and gone. What is the productive purpose of this exercise? Is there any point in it? Doesn’t look like it.
Nor does it seem that the basis for the refusal of extradition has been considered, despite the US being legally obliged to consider the issues raised by the court order. Does that sound right? It shouldn’t, to anyone with any level of legal qualifications.
