WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returned to his homeland Australia aboard a charter jet on Wednesday, hours after pleading guilty to obtaining and publishing U.S. military secrets in a deal with Justice Department prosecutors that concludes a drawn-out legal saga.
The criminal case of international intrigue, which had played out for years, came to a surprise end in a most unusual setting with Assange, 52, entering his plea in a U.S. district court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands. The American commonwealth in the Pacific is relatively close to Assange’s native Australia and accommodated his desire to avoid entering the continental United States.
Assange was accused of receiving and publishing hundreds of thousands of war logs and diplomatic cables that included details of U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His activities drew an outpouring of support from press freedom advocates, who heralded his role in bringing to light military conduct that might otherwise have been concealed from view and warned of a chilling effect on journalists. Among the files published by WikiLeaks was a video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack by American forces in Baghdad that killed 11 people, including two Reuters journalists.
Assange raised his right fist as he emerged for the plane and his supporters at the Canberra airport cheered from a distance. Dressed in the same suit and tie he wore during his earlier court appearance, he embraced his wife Stella Assange and father John Shipton who were waiting on the tarmac.
My bad directing towards whistleblowers when you meant journos. And only about them encouraging others to break the law. Even talking about journalists though I think the same logic can apply. If one lives in for example, an authoritarian regime, any word spoken against the state is considered unlawful. If we apply the situation to less authoritarian government, that still have laws against disseminating information about the government, we run up against the same issues. It’s against the law to show your government doing wrong. So what recourse is left but to break the law in hopes that you can effect some change?
How is a journalist or a whistleblower to call out the worst without breaking the laws or discussing the same? I get that they can sometimes, your two examples, though I’m not familiar with the instances, I’m sure are great examples of when it all goes right. But some information that should be made known, will see the government pursuing the full extent of the law and potentially beyond, against individuals involved in its dissemination. Journalist, whistleblower, exfiltrator, won’t matter.
I can understand protecting innocent people by censoring what comes out. I think that Assange is a scumbag and don’t like how he operates, but I also think governments need to be held accountable for their actions and choices.
I’m really not sure what your argument is. Sometimes journalists and whistleblowers have to break the law? Sure. However, they are still breaking the law. Certainly, an adult who is breaking the law should know that they are subject to consequences and need to suck it up and live with those consequences. Rosa Parks had her day in court and was convicted of a crime. She accepted that she broke the law, regardless of how unjust it was, and did the time. That was enough to affect change.
If Assange, or anyone else, insists on breaking the law to be able to publish information, then they need to accept that they will be held accountable. Chelsea Manning served her time. Assange finally had his day in court. Snowden, hopefully, will get his day in court as well.
I suppose my argument is that if a law is unjust, then so is the punishment for breaking it.