V naslovu ne gre za dilemo, pač pa za dve glavni obtožbi ameriških oblasti proti Julianu Assangeu: (1) da pri njegovem delu ni šlo za novinarstvo, ker naj bi aktivno iskal zaupne informacije (???) in (2) da je z objavami teh informacij na WikiLeaks ogrožal ameriško nacionalno varnost. Gre seveda za sfabricirane obtožbe, ki ne vzdržijo elementarne presoje. Thomas Fazi jih v spodnjem tekstu zelo učinkovito izpodbije.

I’d like to go over both claims, as well as other myths surrounding WikiLeaks’ work and Assange’s legal ordeal, expanding on my recent article in UnHerd. Let’s get started.

Myth n. 1: WikiLeaks’ work is not journalism

Much of the American case rests on the argument that Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ work is not journalism — and therefore does not enjoy the protections afforded to the latter by the US Constitution. I suspect many people out there would probably instinctively agree: the decade-and-a-half-long smear campaign waged against Assange and WikiLeaks has been instrumental in depriving Assange of public support by painting him as a reckless narcissist, a hacker-spy, a cyber-criminal — anything but a journalist. But the reality is that WikiLeaks’s work is no different from that of traditional media organisations. As the New York Timeswrote:

Though he is not a conventional journalist, much of what Mr Assange does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations like The Times do: seek and publish information that officials want to be secret, including classified national security matters, and take steps to protect the confidentiality of sources.

Indeed, WikiLeaks partnered with some of the world’s biggest and most prestigious newspapers to bring their revelations to the public, including the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El País and, of course, the New York Times itself — many of which would subsequently, shamefully, turn their backs on Assange.

In other words, the US authorities’ argument — that what sets Assange aside from “true” journalists is that he actively sought out the information he published — has no merit whatsoever. “Good reporters don’t sit around waiting for someone to leak information, they actively solicit it”, renowned journalism professor Mark Feldstein testified. “When I was a reporter, I personally solicited and received confidential or classified information, hundreds of times. Like Assange, I was actively ‘complicit’ in gathering secret records from government employees”.

Indeed, the impossibility of distinguishing WikiLeaks’ work from that of traditional media organisations, especially WikiLeaks’ journalistic partners, is precisely the reason Obama and his justice departments, despite massively expanding the use of the Espionage Act — and using it to prosecute more whistleblowers and sources than all the US presidents before him combined — ultimately decided against bringing charges under the Espionage Act against Assange. They understood that if they indicted Assange they would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organisations and writers who published classified material. They called it the “New York Times problem”.

“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists”, former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller told the Washington Post. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange”.

As for the claim that Assange directly assisted Manning in gaining access to classified information, by helping her crack a password, it was thoroughly debunked by expert testimony in 2020.

Ultimately, there is no question that what Assange did was journalism — and indeed journalism of the highest order. Knowing the state crimes committed, often in our name, by those in power should be a basic principle of democratic societies; and exposing those crimes should be a basic principle of journalism.

While it is only natural for states to operate with some degree of secrecy, that secrecy is justified only insofar as it is used to protect the safety and security of citizens; not if it used “to conceal state crimes, to ensure impunity for the officials in the institutions that commit those crimes, and to keep the public from discovering the truth and holding them to account”, as the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who has collaborated with WikiLeaks for several years, wrote.

Myth 2: WikiLeaks’ disclosures put the lives of individuals in at risk

The second pillar of the US prosecutor’s case is that by “indiscriminately” publishing “unredacted” sensitive material, WikiLeaks put the lives of US sources and informants at risk. This argument was first made by then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates following the publication of the Afghan War Logs in 2010 — tens of thousands of classified files documenting numerous attacks and slaughters of civilians by US and Western forces in Afghanistan. Gates accused WikiLeaks and Assange of “having blood on their hands” — a claim that was widely echoed in the international media.

The truth is that the publication of the Afghan War Logs was far from indiscriminate. In fact, the information had been carefully redacted by WikiLeaks and its partnership media organisations precisely to avoid putting the lives of individuals at risk. The same line was followed with respect to all subsequent publications as well. Indeed, on more than one occasion WikiLeaks contacted the US authorities to help them minimise the risk of the leaks putting anyone’s life in danger, but they refused to cooperate.

Vir: Thomas Fazi