On World Press Freedom Day last week, US President Joe Biden’s administration should have been asked about the one case officials do not want to talk about: the US Department of Justice’s dangerous prosecution of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.
Assange is a polarizing individual who millions of Americans, especially liberals, have incredibly strong and negative feelings about. I am not here to change your mind about Assange the person, but if you care about press freedom, it is important that you change your mind about Assange the legal case.
There are several facts that are critical to understand about the department’s charges against Assange, whether you love or hate him.
First, the charges have nothing to do with the 2016 US election, then-US presidential candidates Donald Trump vs Hillary Rodham Clinton or Russia. Those phrases are not even mentioned in the indictment.
The crux of the case stems from the US Department of State cables, and Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that then-US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning gave to WikiLeaks in 2010 and were subsequently shared with news outlets around the world, including the Guardian.
Second, the justice department likes to pretend this case is only about hacking and not journalism. They are lying. Seventeen of the 18 charges against Julian Assange are under the Espionage Act, and have nothing to do with hacking. Then again, they have nothing to do with “espionage” either.
The US government does not allege Assange sold any secrets to foreign governments, only that he received classified documents from a source inside the US military, spoke with that source, held on to the documents and eventually published some of them — things national security reporters at the nation’s most mainstream outlets do every day.
Third, whether one considers Julian Assange a journalist or not does not matter. Whether or not Assange fits anyone’s definition of “journalist” is irrelevant when talking about the First Amendment’s guarantee of press freedom. It is a right that is afforded to everyone.
All that matters in this case is that Assange was engaging in acts of journalism indistinguishable from the acts carried out every day in the New York Times, the Guardian and elsewhere. If he can be prosecuted for those acts, so can they.
It is why virtually every single civil liberties, press freedom and human rights organization in the world has repeatedly urged the justice department to drop these dangerous charges.
Now, all newspapers know this. It is why when the charges first came out every editor condemned them. Since then, the New York Times and the Guardian have signed a letter calling the charges “dangerous” and for them to be dropped.
Yet that is not enough. There has not been consistent pressure on the justice department, there has been no campaigning by the newspapers, there are no constant reminders on social media — nothing.
We know the Biden administration is amenable to pressure from news outlets, too. At the beginning of the administration, the public learned that the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN had been secretly spied on by then-US president Trump’s justice department, and journalists were rightly outraged.
It was not only countless social media posts, but repeated and pointed questioning at White House and justice department news conferences that forced the administration’s hand. Biden quickly responded, condemning what had happened, and within a few days had ordered the justice department to cease spying on journalists under his administration.
Just last month, when respected Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was arrested in Russia on sham “espionage” charges, the Journal marshaled its resources to help its colleague, thousands of journalists expressed outrage on social media and protests sprung up everywhere.
The White House and state department felt the pressure, and they were soon out in front, promising to do whatever they possibly could to bring Evan home.
Even if one trusts Biden not to go after journalists, think about who might follow him. Trump is on the campaign trail right now literally musing about throwing journalists in jail. Who would love to use Assange as precedent more than him?
This is not some hypothetical, far-flung, slippery-slope argument. Officials in previous administrations — such as those of former US presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush — have wanted to use the Espionage Act to prosecute journalists. Each time, they were thwarted because it was assumed that such a prosecution would contravene the constitution.
Right now, Assange sits where he has for the past several years, behind bars at His Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in the UK, waiting to see if he will be extradited to the US. Assange’s legal team has sent an appeal to Britain’s highest court.
Many observers were expecting the court to rule more than five months ago, but there has been no word since last year.
While Assange can still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if he loses, his chances could be running out.
If he is extradited, his case will go from being ignored in the US to an absolute circus. The justice department is likely to dig its heels in even further to avoid the embarrassment of dropping the charges during a media firestorm.
By then it could be too late anyway. A new president might be in office, who would not only ignore pleas from journalists but could revel in them.
Ask yourself: do you trust Trump not to turn around and use this precedent on the reporters he considers the “enemies of the people” and has previously wanted thrown in jail? If not, then now is the time to take a stand about the dangerous case against Assange.
If we wait until the next World Press Freedom Day, it could be too late.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
RSS