There is a fundamental question here: what are the limits of journalism?
So you receive classified information and publish it. In the US at least there are is some precedent for journalistic protection here. Think the Pentagon Papers [1].
Let's take it a step further: what if instead of simply receiving classified information you provide material aid to whoever is stealing it? What if you're directing the thief on what to steal? Are you still a journalist?
Let's take it in another direction: how do you choose what to publish? Generally reputable news organizations will redact things that aren't newsworthy or might, say, endanger people in the field (eg by releasing details about an undercover operation).
But what if your decision on what to publish is partisan or otherwise aimed at achieving a particular end, political or otherwise? Are you still a journalist?
Some will argue there are no limits. I don't think that's a reasonable position as it essentially justifies anything as long as you claim to be wearing a journalist's hat.
So here are the problems for Assange:
1. He wasn't "passive' with Bradley/Chelsea Manning and provided material aid;
2. The Wikileaks releases were clearly aimed at hurting Hilary Clinton in 2016 (eg the Podesta emails). We can speculate as to why. Personal politics? Maybe Assange thought he'd fare better in a Trump administration? I don't know.
3. Additionally, he's kind of a creepy guy. This isn't material to an espionage case but in the court of public opinion, reputation matters. I would love to know how the incident rose to the level of rape charges that Swedish prosecutors decided to pursue because on the face of it, it just doesn't make sense. Some will argue it was at the behest of the US but I'm not really sure that adds up. Maybe someday we'll know the inside story. I can but hope.
Now on the US side, how has this desire to prosecute and to punish Assange by proxy (eg containing him in the Ecuadoran embassy was clearly a "punishment") survived a decade? At the Federal level this has gone through 2 administrations, one of each party, 4 AGs and I'm not sure how many US Attorneys.
It's a little strange that the US continues to push this so hard. Is it just about sending a message to any future leakers? For the record, the Obama administration was particularly harsh with leakers so this is possible.
Maybe this has just taken on a life of its own and there is no puppet master at the top. Stranger things have happened.
So you receive classified information and publish it. In the US at least there are is some precedent for journalistic protection here. Think the Pentagon Papers [1].
Let's take it a step further: what if instead of simply receiving classified information you provide material aid to whoever is stealing it? What if you're directing the thief on what to steal? Are you still a journalist?
Let's take it in another direction: how do you choose what to publish? Generally reputable news organizations will redact things that aren't newsworthy or might, say, endanger people in the field (eg by releasing details about an undercover operation).
But what if your decision on what to publish is partisan or otherwise aimed at achieving a particular end, political or otherwise? Are you still a journalist?
Some will argue there are no limits. I don't think that's a reasonable position as it essentially justifies anything as long as you claim to be wearing a journalist's hat.
So here are the problems for Assange:
1. He wasn't "passive' with Bradley/Chelsea Manning and provided material aid;
2. The Wikileaks releases were clearly aimed at hurting Hilary Clinton in 2016 (eg the Podesta emails). We can speculate as to why. Personal politics? Maybe Assange thought he'd fare better in a Trump administration? I don't know.
3. Additionally, he's kind of a creepy guy. This isn't material to an espionage case but in the court of public opinion, reputation matters. I would love to know how the incident rose to the level of rape charges that Swedish prosecutors decided to pursue because on the face of it, it just doesn't make sense. Some will argue it was at the behest of the US but I'm not really sure that adds up. Maybe someday we'll know the inside story. I can but hope.
Now on the US side, how has this desire to prosecute and to punish Assange by proxy (eg containing him in the Ecuadoran embassy was clearly a "punishment") survived a decade? At the Federal level this has gone through 2 administrations, one of each party, 4 AGs and I'm not sure how many US Attorneys.
It's a little strange that the US continues to push this so hard. Is it just about sending a message to any future leakers? For the record, the Obama administration was particularly harsh with leakers so this is possible.
Maybe this has just taken on a life of its own and there is no puppet master at the top. Stranger things have happened.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers