The Indictment of Julian Assange Under the Espionage Act Is a Threat to the Press and the American People

Guest Post by James Risen

LONDON, ENGLAND - AUGUST 20:  Placards are left by supporters of Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks whistle-blowing website, outside the Ecuadorian Embassy where Mr Assange has been living since June on August 20, 2012 in London, England. Several South American nations have declared their support for Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Mr Assange whilst he faces extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault.  (Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images)

A true democracy does not allow its government to decide who is a journalist. A nation in which a leader gets to make that decision is on the road to dictatorship.

That is why the new U.S. indictment of Julian Assange is so dangerous to liberty in America.

The Trump administration has charged Assange under the Espionage Act for conspiring to leak classified documents. The indictment, released yesterday, focuses on his alleged efforts to encourage former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents to him and WikiLeaks about a decade ago.

Many of those documents, including U.S. military reports and State Department cables, were later published by WikiLeaks, but they were also the basis of reporting by major news organizations like the New York Times and The Guardian, which published some of them. The Manning leaks helped reveal long-hidden truths about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the post-9/11 global war on terror. Among the most striking leaks were a classified video of U.S. military attack helicopters killing a dozen people, including two Reuters staffers, in Baghdad in 2007, as well as the more than 250,000 State Department cables, which continue to be an important reference for reporters and researchers studying U.S. foreign policy.

The Manning documents also turned WikiLeaks into a strange new player in the modern journalistic ecosystem. WikiLeaks would obtain materials from sources inside governments and other organizations and then disseminate them, either by publishing them itself or by sharing them with major news organizations. WikiLeaks served as an intermediary between sources and reporters.

Does that make Assange, its founder, a journalist? A debate over that question has raged ever since and has never been resolved.

Journalists don’t want the government to settle this question — and Americans shouldn’t either. If the government gets to decide what constitutes journalism, what’s to stop it from making similar rulings about any outlet whose coverage it doesn’t like?

The indictment says that Assange and WikiLeaks “repeatedly sought, obtained, and disseminated information that the United States classified due to the serious risk that unauthorized disclosure could harm the national security of the United States.”

That is almost a textbook definition of the job of a reporter covering national security at a major news organization. Take a look at the tips pages of most news outlets, and you’ll see a remarkable similarity between what journalists ask for and what WikiLeaks sought.

The indictment goes on to say that “WikiLeaks’s website explicitly solicited censored, otherwise restricted, and until September 2010, ‘classified’ materials.” Today, virtually every major news organization has a similar secure drop box where sources can provide information anonymously. WikiLeaks popularized that technique for soliciting anonymous leaks, but it is now common journalistic practice.

“Assange personally and publicly promoted WikiLeaks to encourage those with access to protected information, including classified information, to provide it to WikiLeaks for public disclosure,” the indictment says. Nearly every national security reporter goes on television, gives speeches, or launches book tours to promote their work and hopefully obtain new sources.

All of this raises an obvious question: If the government can charge Assange for conspiring to obtain leaked documents, what would stop it from charging the CIA beat reporter at the New York Times for committing the same crime?

The Obama administration began the government’s investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks over the Manning leaks, but the issue of how to distinguish between WikiLeaks and the rest of the media is generally thought to have given them pause.

The Trump administration has no such qualms. President Donald Trump sees the media as the enemy of the people; charging Assange opens the door for his Justice Department to go after the rest of the press corps.

The great irony, of course, is that Trump publicly declared his love for WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign, when WikiLeaks acted as a kind of intermediary between shadowy front entities put up by Russian intelligence and the U.S. media in the distribution of hacked emails and other documents from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.

Whether WikiLeaks and Assange knew they were getting the materials at least indirectly from Russian intelligence is still an open question. But there is no doubt that the New York Times, The Intercept, and other major media organizations largely ignored their provenance and instead lapped up the leaked materials and published them in the midst of the 2016 campaign.

The results were very good for Trump.

But the government’s case against Assange has nothing to do with his role in laundering documents stolen by Russian spies to help Trump win the 2016 election. Instead, it focuses on his earlier work, which brought new light to the dark corners of the war on terror.

The selective nature of the charges against Assange underscores the fact that this is a highly politicized case brought by a Justice Department now run by Trump lackey William Barr. Even as it pursues Assange for his role in producing groundbreaking journalism, Trump’s Justice Department is ignoring the one known instance when Assange actually worked, perhaps unwittingly, with a foreign intelligence service.

But given that exploring said angle would raise new questions about alleged links between Trump and Russia, it is exceedingly unlikely that this Justice Department would choose to go down that road. Instead, it’s going after the publication of classified documents that helped educate Americans about the conduct of their own government. All journalists — and all Americans— should be deeply worried about that.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
6 Comments
Diogenes’ Dung
Diogenes’ Dung
May 25, 2019 11:04 am

Anybody remember the Boomer’s (and World’s) Standard Bearer for Investigative journalism, Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer-Prize, 1970?

Mỹ Lai Massacre; Cambodia bombing, Watergate, Abu Ghraib; Bengazi (Red Line Rat Line)…

… he’s now limited to publishing in online “Fake News” forums.

American people threatened by throttled journalism? Nonsense. We’re already planted six feet under by CIA-controlled news forums. Anybody know why the CIA ‘funded’ the Bezo’s Washington Post $600 million, after he paid $300 million for it?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-the-washington-posts_b_4587927

Jefferson thought a free press even more important than having any form of government, while acknowledging it required a literate populace. He didn’t mean grade school comprehension, which is all that can be expected of Americans.

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.”

None Ya Biz
None Ya Biz
  Diogenes’ Dung
May 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Grade school then vs now?

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
May 25, 2019 11:56 am

The main point of this article can’t be disputed.

A few important nits to pick: Barr is Trump’s “lackey”? Aside from the issue of Assange (to which I doubt Barr has given much thought), Barr’s conduct has been exemplary – the first AG I’ve seen in many years who isn’t demonstrably corrupt. Did Risen call Eric Holder Obama’s “lackey”? And of course, it’s implied that anything that Wikileaks released in 2016 came from the Russians. It was all “hacked”, no mentioned of being leaked by an insider. If that were true, why bother murdering Seth Rich? And that highlights the other issue that provides necessary context to the Assange charges. People who had foreknowledge of the Seth Rich hit – and the Andrew Breitbart hit, and the Michael Hastings hit, and the Antonin Scalia hit – are still in place. Key elements of the intelligence community CIA, NSA, FBI, DNI, DOJ have been spying on Americans for years – certainly throughout most of the Obama Administration, if not for years before. Or do you think John Roberts changed his already-written opinion in the Obamacare case on his own without some very convincing “encouragement”? For goodness’ sake, the entire Deep State spent three years running the Russian hoax – in part to hide past perfidy, in part to ensure Trump not be elected and then to disgorge him.

So Trump is riding a tiger. In all of DC, there were exactly two people sharing Trump’s nationalist, non-interventionist worldview: Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump. Maybe Stephen Miller. Everyone else is an interventionist globalist – whether they identify as a neocon or a neoliberal. Where exactly was he supposed to find a MAGA army to populate the tens of thousands of positions in these executive and intelligence agencies? If they want Assange’s hide, can Trump reasonably be expected to call them off? Hell, an irritated tweet has been characterized as obstruction of justice. If Trump let Assange off, it would obviously be treated as “evidence” by a Congress on the cusp of impeaching Trump for nothing whatsoever.

The problem for those who watch in disgust as Trump seemingly surrenders to the Deep State and the neocons is that his being co-opted by them and his shrewdly pretending to be co-opted by them looks exactly the same from the outside. Only by seeing what never happens – an invasion of Syria or Venezuela or Iran – can we slowly discern the truth.

It could even be reasonably- if not convincingly- postulated that Assange is safer in US custody awaiting trial than roaming free like Michael Hastings, Seth Rich, Breitbart or Scalia. Especially if Assange can prove he’d gotten DNC emails from Rich. Letting the Deep State mute Assange by imprisoning him might be better than their muting him permanently. So long as he’s alive and in office, Trump can always pardon Assange. He can’t bring him back to life.

That’s not to excuse entirely Trump letting this prosecution proceed. If Assange ends up spending years in prison, it’ll be to Trump’s eternal shame. I’ll wait until the end of 2020 to decide that.

ursel doran
ursel doran
May 25, 2019 1:30 pm

MSM coming out on this.

Professional Assange Smearers Finally Realize His Fate Is Tied To Theirs

Diogenes’ Dung
Diogenes’ Dung
  ursel doran
May 25, 2019 3:44 pm

When Rachel Madcow moos about the ‘Deep State’ conspiracy to silence moo’ers, the ‘Capital Cartel’s’ cowboys aren’t herding according to the coordinated global plan that financed the crusades.

You laughing pointy teeth because you’ve only been arrested twice? My nigga!

https://www.bizapedia.com/nv/osceola-mining-inc.html

John L Kelly
John L Kelly
May 25, 2019 7:30 pm

Mr Risen began this article with an assumption that was totally incorrect. The truth is that we are NOT a True Democracy, or any democracy at all. The founding fathers were scared spitless of the word “democracy”. That’s why they created a constitutionally “Representative Republic”. Democracy is majority rule, i.e. “Mob Rule” if you wish. Anybody believing we are a “true democracy” is very uneducated and needs to be corrected by all informed citizens.