WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange is so disliked in journalism and political circles that many reporters and liberal politicians were publicly cheering on Thursday last week when US President Donald Trump’s administration released an indictment of Assange, which was related to his interactions with whistle-blower Chelsea Manning in the months leading up to the publication of Pentagon and US Department of State cables in 2010.
Please do not fall for this trap. It is exactly what the Trump administration is hoping for as the US Department of Justice moves forward with its next dangerous step in its war on journalism and press freedom.
The larger context surrounding the case is almost as important as the Assange indictment itself.
Trump has been furious with leakers and the news organizations that publish them ever since he took office.
He complains about it constantly in his Twitter tirades. He has repeatedly directed the justice department to stop leaks, and he even asked former FBI director James Comey if he can put journalists in jail.
The department has responded by launching a record number of leak cases and has weighed changing the rules to make it easier to subpoena journalists.
However, officials at the department are not so stupid as to overtly act on the president’s most controversial musings and immediately attempt to prosecute New York Times or Washington Post reporters. Give them more credit than that.
If they were to do so, the public backlash would be so overwhelming that, even if their case did not fall apart before trial, a judge would almost certainly put an end to it.
There are other, more methodical ways for the department to ultimately get what Trump wants, and the case against Assange is its perfect vehicle.
What is the most effective way to curtail the rights of all people?
First go after the unpopular; the person who might be despised in society and will have very few defenders. Assange fits this profile to a T.
Once there is law on the books that says “this aspect of journalism is illegal,” it becomes much easier for the department to bring other cases against more mainstream government critics down the road, and much harder for judges to immediately dismiss them.
Instead of thinking, “I hate Julian Assange, so I’m glad he’s going to be punished,” ask yourself this: Do you trust Trump’s justice department to protect press freedom?
The Trump administration has attempted to disguise its motives in the Assange case by avoiding overtly criminalizing the act of publishing itself. Instead, it has accused Assange of one count of “conspiracy” to breach a computer crime law when he allegedly offered Manning help in cracking a password in 2010.
The indictment does not allege they ever did crack the password, nor do they allege it helped Assange get any documents from Manning.
It is true that most journalists are not going to attempt to help a source crack a password and no one is claiming that is some sort of First Amendment protected right.
However, when anyone reads the entire indictment — rather than just the hyperbolic “conspiracy to hack” headline the department wants you to see — it is clear that it is using the conspiracy charge as a pretext to target Assange, and potentially criminalize important and common journalistic practices in newsgathering at the same time.
The indictment refers to using an encrypted chat program to communicate with Manning for months.
It describes how Assange wanted to protect Manning’s anonymity and did so by redacting information such as user names from the documents Manning sent him.
It also talks about how Assange requested that Manning send him additional documents and material that were newsworthy.
These are all standard practices for countless journalists around the US and around the world. Using encryption and protecting the anonymity of sources are virtually requirements in an age where leak investigations are common. Reporters would not be doing their job if they refused to ask sources for information and instead waited for it to miraculously drop in their lap.
CNN has already reported that the department expects to bring more charges against Assange. Coupled with an ominous reference to the Espionage Act in the current indictment, this all suggests prosecutors might still be thinking about charging him for a crime involving the act of publishing too — a Rubicon that would be an absolute disaster for reporters everywhere.
For those who have been following WikiLeaks closely over the years, none of the information in the Assange indictment released is new. Former US president Barack Obama’s administration had this exact same information at its disposal since at least 2011, when it first considered indicting Assange.
Despite Obama’s extremely disappointing record on press freedom, his justice department ultimately ended up making the right call when it decided that it was too dangerous to prosecute WikiLeaks without putting news organizations, such as the New York Times and the Guardian, at risk.
To those who have no sympathy for Assange, are you going to trust Trump’s justice department over Obama’s? Given the Trump justice department is relying on nine-year-old evidence on a flimsy charge of “conspiracy” to crack a password — an alleged scheme even the department admits did not work — do you think it might have ulterior motives when it comes to this case?
Virtually all the major press freedom and civil liberties organizations denounced the prosecution, and expressed extreme concern that even though the indictment was ostensibly about “hacking” that it implicated serious press freedom concerns nonetheless.
At a time when press freedom has never been more at the forefront of the public consciousness, when it is the subject of Super Bowl commercials and celebrity award shows, please do not sit back and say: “Yeah, I trust the Trump administration to protect my rights in this case.” It is a recipe for disaster.
Trevor Timm is executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath