The federal government likes to operate behind the scenes, keep the public in the dark, stonewall those who press for information and prevent leaks.
That’s the plot line behind U.S. efforts to extradite Julian Assange from London on a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.
The Justice Department wants to try Mr. Assange for working with former Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning to disseminate documents exposing civilian deaths and other embarrassing secrets about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The government has the flimsiest of evidence to support its claim that he went beyond disclosure of documents and assisted Manning in the actual computer hacking that yielded them.
Mr. Assange evaded U.S. authorities for about seven years by taking refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London. But now Ecuador has kicked him out and, if he’s returned to the U.S. he may face proceedings under the Espionage Act that preclude him from arguing that he acted in the public interest.
As the brains behind WikiLeaks, a website devoted to divulging government secrets, Mr. Assange has one heck of a target on his back. What a coup it would be for transparency-averse bureaucrats in Washington to lock up one of the world’s most resilient leakers, deal a fatal blow to WikiLeaks and send a zero-tolerance message to other would-be whistleblowers all at the same time.
Mr. Assange is an unlikable character with many enemies. Sweden was investigating him for sexual assault at the time he took cover in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. During the 2016 presidential campaign, WikiLeaks published embarrassing Democratic Party emails — likely stolen by the Russians — showing favoritism toward Hillary Clinton’s campaign at a time Bernie Sanders was still running.
But Mr. Assange’s character is not the issue. Government accountability and the First Amendment are.
Mr. Assange’s case has striking parallels to those of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg and National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. Their leaks, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper stories that followed, helped to shape public opinion about seminal periods in American history. America wouldn’t be the same if they had looked the other way.
Just as with Mr. Assange, the government went after Mr. Ellsberg and Mr. Snowden instead of accepting responsibility for the misconduct they exposed. The government so bungled the investigation of Mr. Ellsberg that a judge was forced to dismiss espionage charges against him. Mr. Snowden, still wanted by U.S. authorities, remains a fugitive in Russia.
Mr. Assange’s critics dispute the notion that charging him is an attack on the First Amendment. They say Mr. Assange isn’t a journalist, just the curator of a website that puts secrets on display. One might argue about the craft of journalism. One might argue about the quality of journalism. But in terms of the exercise of First Amendment freedoms, revealing what is hidden is journalism. That makes Mr. Assange, apart from his personality or his politics, a journalist.
A successful prosecution of Mr. Assange could lead, in future years, to dragnets against reporters and their confidential sources. Freedom-loving people, especially journalists, should stand up for his right to dig and disclose.
First Published: April 17, 2019, 10:00 a.m.
