Stewart outlines other related questions it raises: "Do you consider Wikileaks a journalistic organization or not? Did Assange actively participate in criminal activity to obtain classified intel, as the US government alleges, or did he just disseminate information passed on to him and is therefore protected by the First Amendment? . . . . And is the single charge he faces in the United States the total of the government's push for justice -- or is it just the opening salvo in what will become a larger war to punish Assange (and anyone else who publishes classified information)?"
The essential question, it seems to me, is whether Assange simply received the intel passively (which would entitle him to publish/disseminate it without penalty) or whether he broke the law by assisting Chelsia Manning in the stealing/leaking of the intel. Manning is the one who had access to classified material as an employee of the U.S. government.
Excerpts from Emily Stewart's article for Vox.com:
================
". . . Assange was arrested in London by British police after being expelled from the Ecuadorian Embassy there. He now faces extradition to the US. After his arrest, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment alleging that Assange conspired with former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password on a Defense Department computer network in order to download classified records and transmit them to Wikileaks in 2010."
[In other words, they are not charging him for publishing but for conspiring to, in effect, "break in" to steal the records.] That's where the red line is that our justice system distinguishes between freedom of the press and illegal stealing of state secrets. Now to return to Stewart's article:]
Stewart asserts that the US government already had its sights on Assange and Wikileaks prior to those recent Manning leaks, going back to 2010 when they published videos of airstrikes that killed civilians in Iraq, as well as diplomatic cables -- all supplied by Manning. And then there were the hacked emails from the DNC and Clinton's campaign chair's computer. Stewart's article continues:
"There has long been a debate about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. Some view Assange and WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency and an ultimate example of forcing government accountability. Others see the work as dangerous and treacherous. . . .
"Some groups dedicated to free speech and press have decried the incident as foreshadowing of dark times to come for American journalism, while many observers have celebrated it as justice served. . . .
"Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's speech, privacy, and technology project, said . . . that any prosecution of Assange for WikiLeaks' publishing operation would be 'unprecedented and unconstitutional and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.'
"Barry Pollack, an attorney for Assange, [wrote]: 'Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges." . . .
". . . As Vox's Andrew Prokop laid out at the time, the US government had already charged people they'd accused of leaking classified information, including Manning, but going after the publisher of that information was highly unusual. It's one of the reasons President Barack Obama's Justice Department hadn't charged Assange years ago.
"But after Assange's arrest on Thursday, Department of Justice unsealed the indictment, which is dated to March 2018. The charge: 'conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,' related to Assange's alleged attempt in 2010 to help Manning figure out a password she needed to access more classified documents and information. . . .
". . . [compared to what some expected, including more serious charges under the Espionage Act] the charge against Assange is, frankly, a pretty small one. If he's convicted, he could face up to five years in prison -- less time than he spent hiding out in the Ecuardorian embassy. . .
"It's a bit like gangster Al Capone being arrested on tax evasion charges: It's probably not what the US government wanted to get him on, but . . . . 'it's the thing that they can win a court case over.' . . .
"That's not to say that what the indictment alleges . . . isn't a crime. And reporters don't get to just commit any crime they want in the name of journalism. . . .
"Whether Assange committed a crime in his work with Manning is something that will ultimately be decided if he is indeed extradicted and brought to trial. That's when courts will determine whether he knowingly violated the law to gain access to information. What it could all hinge on: Did he just advise Manning on how to avoid detection, or was he conspiring with her to get information in an illegal way? . . .
"There is established in the law a pretty bright line . . . You cross it when you become a participant in illegal activity. . . .
"The debate about Assange and WikiLeaks stretches far beyond helping Manning crack a password. It has reopened the ongoing discussion about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. . . .
"Is a data dump journalism? . . . When you release terabytes of data indiscriminately . . . [it is] not self-evidently journalism.
"'Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public,' [the ACLU's] Wizner told CNN in 2017. 'Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations. . . .
"The controversy over WikiLeaks' place in the journalistic sphere and what Assange's arrest means for reporting isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It may very well be that Assange did commit a crime -- but his arrest might not be something we should cheer, at least not without some reflection."
[In other words, they are not charging him for publishing but for conspiring to, in effect, "break in" to steal the records.] That's where the red line is that our justice system distinguishes between freedom of the press and illegal stealing of state secrets. Now to return to Stewart's article:]
Stewart asserts that the US government already had its sights on Assange and Wikileaks prior to those recent Manning leaks, going back to 2010 when they published videos of airstrikes that killed civilians in Iraq, as well as diplomatic cables -- all supplied by Manning. And then there were the hacked emails from the DNC and Clinton's campaign chair's computer. Stewart's article continues:
"There has long been a debate about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. Some view Assange and WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency and an ultimate example of forcing government accountability. Others see the work as dangerous and treacherous. . . .
"Some groups dedicated to free speech and press have decried the incident as foreshadowing of dark times to come for American journalism, while many observers have celebrated it as justice served. . . .
"Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's speech, privacy, and technology project, said . . . that any prosecution of Assange for WikiLeaks' publishing operation would be 'unprecedented and unconstitutional and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.'
"Barry Pollack, an attorney for Assange, [wrote]: 'Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges." . . .
". . . As Vox's Andrew Prokop laid out at the time, the US government had already charged people they'd accused of leaking classified information, including Manning, but going after the publisher of that information was highly unusual. It's one of the reasons President Barack Obama's Justice Department hadn't charged Assange years ago.
"But after Assange's arrest on Thursday, Department of Justice unsealed the indictment, which is dated to March 2018. The charge: 'conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,' related to Assange's alleged attempt in 2010 to help Manning figure out a password she needed to access more classified documents and information. . . .
". . . [compared to what some expected, including more serious charges under the Espionage Act] the charge against Assange is, frankly, a pretty small one. If he's convicted, he could face up to five years in prison -- less time than he spent hiding out in the Ecuardorian embassy. . .
"It's a bit like gangster Al Capone being arrested on tax evasion charges: It's probably not what the US government wanted to get him on, but . . . . 'it's the thing that they can win a court case over.' . . .
"That's not to say that what the indictment alleges . . . isn't a crime. And reporters don't get to just commit any crime they want in the name of journalism. . . .
"Whether Assange committed a crime in his work with Manning is something that will ultimately be decided if he is indeed extradicted and brought to trial. That's when courts will determine whether he knowingly violated the law to gain access to information. What it could all hinge on: Did he just advise Manning on how to avoid detection, or was he conspiring with her to get information in an illegal way? . . .
"There is established in the law a pretty bright line . . . You cross it when you become a participant in illegal activity. . . .
"The debate about Assange and WikiLeaks stretches far beyond helping Manning crack a password. It has reopened the ongoing discussion about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. . . .
"Is a data dump journalism? . . . When you release terabytes of data indiscriminately . . . [it is] not self-evidently journalism.
"'Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public,' [the ACLU's] Wizner told CNN in 2017. 'Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations. . . .
"The controversy over WikiLeaks' place in the journalistic sphere and what Assange's arrest means for reporting isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It may very well be that Assange did commit a crime -- but his arrest might not be something we should cheer, at least not without some reflection."
================
Where is Clarence Darrow now when we need him?
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment