By defrinition that is now being used anyone who writes one story for a self pulished blog is a journalist. Assange was never a journalist, neither was Wikileaks.
The world is not going to end, nor is someone coming for the New York Times or other sites. There is no slippery slope.
5
This is an interesting, thoughtful view from the left.
I think that if Michelle Goldberg thought about it some more, she might come over to a view closer to Noam Chomsky:
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/12/chomsky_arrest_of_assange_is_scandalous
Chomsky: Arrest of Assange Is “Scandalous” and Highlights Shocking Extraterritorial Reach of U.S.
Chomsky: WikiLeaks was producing things that people ought to know about those in power. People in power don’t like that, so therefore we have to silence it....
The other scandal is just the extraterritorial reach of the United States...
why should the United States have the power to control what others are doing elsewhere in the world?
(Chomsky says that the same thing happened in Brazil to Lula da Silva, who produced a dramatic reduction in poverty, and inclusion of indigenous populations, was widely popular, and almost certain to win the next election. The Brazilian government put him in jail incommunacado, for 25 years.)
11
Neither in the original NYT article reporting Assange's arrest nor in this Op-Ed is there any mention of the IMF.
Which just approved a 10 billion dollar bailout package for Ecuador.
For those unfamiliar with how the IMF works in conjunction with Western VIPs who are fans of Milton Friedman's Chicago School of Economics, google the topic. Even better, read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine."
Oh and if you want to visit Ecuador before many public things become privatized, I suggest booking your tickets ASAP. Because the IMF's only recipe in their cookbook involves privatizing everything while stripping assets from anything remotely resembling "socialism." Which includes everything from pensions to the transportation system, health care to tolls for bridges and freeways.
Oh and the resultant dish served to the citizens of the country that benefit from the IMF's largesse? Strong on a spicy steep increase in inequality and a sharp reduction in any services the government used to provide, apart from a stronger military and police. The only folks that drool over the aroma are the ones atop the inequality pyramid, who get obscenely richer than their merely former wealthy status.
Coincidence? Surely not. But ask yourself why the NYT couldn't be bothered to comment on the serendipity.
14
Assange should be freed and all the awful stuff about his stay in the Embassy should never be published. Only stuff about America's national security should be published.
2
Snowden posted a message from Russia claiming that Assange’s arrest poses a threat to freedom of the press.
Do I agree? No!!!
Assange was not behaving like a responsible member of the press. Rather, he was a thief, conducting his misdeeds electronically.
He is an Aussie bad actor, using the crutch of “publisher”—just like another Aussie, Murdoch.
6
Defending Assange as a “journalist” and a truth-teller ignores his perfidy, cynicism, and willingness to do the bidding of his paymasters in the name not of reporting but of profiting his own career and agenda. You can be a reporter, even an effective one, even a brilliant one, and still be a criminal (witness the extortion and catch-and-kill tactics by the Enquirer). Honest journalism saved the Republic in 1973. Dishonest actors calling themselves journalists are now destroying what is left of it.
3
Whatever. He worked with Russia to steal information for the purpose of disinformation. He is not a journalist, and calling what he does "journalism" is like calling a serial killer a doctor because he cuts into people.
5
Assange is a Russian agent. Wake me up when he reveals information which is damaging to anyone other than the western democracies that Putin wants to destroy.
4
Assange put Trump in the white house. Thanks to Assange, the official policy of the US government is now based on the notion that journalists are "the enemy of the people". Who knows what kind of damage Assange could inflict on the First Amendment in 2020. Better to have one journalist behind bars than to make the practice of journalism permanently illegal.
1
The 1st Amendment isn't a license to publish restricted data and information. Just as the liberals whine that the 2nd Amendment can have reasonable limitations, so can the 1st Amendment. What's good for the goose...........
Julian Assange is not being charged with any issue regarding journalism. End of story.
What he is getting charged with is the theft of classified documents. This is the same charge Chelsea Manning got several years in prison for until Obama commuted the sentence.
For example, if the NYT prints information from stolen documents- they are protected by the first amendment.
If the NYT participates in the actual theft of these documents like Assange- then they will be charged.
Do not confuse the issue here.
5
There’s manafort Assange connection? So investigators probably know a lot from manafort than the public or media is privy to? Complex web. The role of journalists is to connect the dots, make sense of each thread on the tangles, without themselves getting sucked into it. Sadly our media is not objective. Journalists seem to write more for other journalists than the public, same goes for the talking heads. Instead of reporting facts, their sharing of information is laced with judgement.
1
Freedom of the press is not the issue here. Assange is accused of hacking into a government computer which has nothing to do with freedom of the press. He is also a purveyor of sensitive unauthorized information rather than being a member of the press. Had Assange been one of Trump's liasons with Putin, it is unlikely that this administration would be going after him.
1
Courts have held that the press can publish even classified information given to them, ie. Daniel Ellsberg. Reporters can't legally steal it.
1
The arrest warrant for Assange has nothing to do with the various leaks of the 2016 election. He had been in Ecuador’s embassy for five years at that time and in no position to steal classified US documents. He is NOT charged with releasing classified material. Rather, he is being charged for the initial theft in 2010. I know of NO “responsible” journalist who claims that the initial THEFT of classified information is protected by the First Amendment as the “legitimate” function of a free press.
Deserves his fate? Aren't we rule of law people? What does fate have to do with it?
1
Julian Assange does not come across as a likeable figure. He also is despised by two former admiring females with whom he had sex in fashion that allegedly violated the laws of Sweden, and he has a case to answer before the Swedish Courts.
As for the USA, he significantly embarrassed the US government, and indeed it’s population when videos of clear war crimes were realised. ( Heavens knows how many other war crimes remain undisclosed, given the tight military control of the press in that war).
He may not have done America any favours, but not withstanding all his faults, he did humanity a little good. For the people of the Middle East at least, Trump so far has proved to be less of a war monger than his predecessors .
The Democrats could have put up a much better candidate than Clinton. Unfortunately to have a hope in American elections you got to be able raise vast amounts of the Benjamin Franklins.
2
" Hacking is not journalistic practice ". Exactly. Because that's what Assange is - a hacker in the guise of a journalist! Therefore, jornalists should'nt be supporting him nor get alarmed. Indicting a hacker putting our country's secrets in jeopardy is no threat to the First Amendment. In this digital era there are enough dangers due to unscrupulous data from unscrupulous people and personal information being disseminated thro' every digital outlet. Assange is just one of those people. He is NOT a journalist! Period.
1
Assange would be more convincing as a crusader for free speech and openness if he didn't look so much like a Russian asset. He just happened to be dumping stuff that would cause trouble for Clinton, and help for Trump in the election... and he's a bit like Trump in that he doesn't really have much negative to say about Putin... Same with Snowden.
1
"Is Assange’s Arrest a Threat to the Free Press?"
That's easy to answer.
No.
Assange is not an Americn citizen and his organization is not incorporated in the United States or its territories or protectorates.
Assange knowingly and willingly published information that he knew was classified and knew was stolen from the United States goverment.
As such he is not eligible for protection under the United States Constitution.
It is our press, that is free and protected.
Foreign actors seeking to harm the United States do so at their peril.
1
Arrange is a Russian agent, not a journalist. All of the information he releases is weaponized, carefully calculated to damage only those western democracies his Kremlin masters want him to destroy.
1
Before you start contemplating if the ends justify the means you have to determine what the ends are in the first place. To know that can make the means justifiable. For example if your goal is to expose the corruption in a system, do you have to follow the laws which maintain that system? But then is exposing the corruption truly the ends that you wish to achieve?
It is this way with Assange. It is undoubtedly true that people in our government are authorizing vile things that serves their ends and exposing that corruption is just in most situations. But why is Assange on this crusade? You cannot divorce him from his actions and most of what is reported about him reeks of narcissism. If that is the case then his exposing of corruption points more to his personal belief that he is above the law and should not be constrained by it. To prove its fallibility or questionable motives strengthens his case and makes him the David to government's Goliath.
These questions are only applicable because we have forgotten the core reasons to have a government in the first place which is to create a healthy and vibrant society. Government's actions should always be weighed with this in mind and would clear up a lot of complex issues. In dealing with Assange does he really care about the society or does he wish to prove that no society has the right to limit his freedoms?
2
Assange's arrest should do more to promote the free press than a reduction of its integrity; he's a self-absorbed hack, and is not deserved of his identification as being part of such.
If you steal sensitive government info and publicize it without objective concern for the ramifications (or with the intent of misplaced political disruption), your identity should be far from what the free press stands for.
5
"These charges do not pose quite the threat to a free press that some feared, because hacking is not standard journalistic practice."
This all about revealing government crimes and secrets. The argument that "hacking is not standard journalistic practice" ignores the fact that if information obtained via hacking reveals government crimes, then journalistic integrity obligates the release of the hacked information.
"...that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be worried about what Donald Trump’s Justice Department is up to."
It should be added that, we also need to be worried about what the Democrats do, since Obama indicted more journalist and sources via the archaic Espionage Act than all other presidents combined.
3
As they said during WWII, "Loose lips sink ships." Most classified info is classified for a reason.
Here we are after two years still all wrapped up in a possible scandal over whether leaked info adversely affected the 2016 election, but acting clueless about how classified info could get into foreign adversaries' hands in the first place.
The First Amendment doesn’t automatically give the right to sell or even donate state secrets to the highest bidder or first one in line.
We need to get a grip on the results of our actions, political and otherwise regardless of who’s in charge.
@Joan In California I don’t understand; if you want to prosecute Assange for crimes using US law (despite neither being a resident of the US, nor any of the alleged crimes occurring on US soil), does the first amendment not apply? And if not, are we just picking and choosing what US laws apply to people around the world? Or are we willing to relinquish the freedom of expression?
2
Journalism and the free press has ethics as well as the rule of law to guide it about the legality of how it obtains its information. These guidelines are meant to insure the legitimacy of the press. No journalist with any kind of ethical standard who is truly a journalist would break into a home or an organization to obtain information illegally. When its obtained illegally, its integrity is questioned and therefor so is the integrity of the journalist and the journal, which nullifies legitimacy of the information. Assange is not a journalist. He is not the free press.
3
He releases information in large chunks without verification or who it might compromise and hurt. Although, never against governments
Assange is a journalist, the way the phony churches get a certificate from so individuals don't have to pay taxes. The title takes advantages of privileges accorded professionals. Those phony churches aren't legitimate houses of worship, and Julian Assange is not a legitimate journalist.
3
There are distinctions galore to be made here. First, there is a vast difference between a journalist encouraging a whistle blower and Julian Assange encouraging the wholesale theft of diplomatic cables and other classified information. We all know that the New York Times would not publish, say, CIA documents if they were provided by an employee. There would have to be some specific bad behavior. That's what a whistle blower does -- they expose specific events of bad behavior and provide documentary evidence of it. They don't just provide all the data they can find and then hope that there's enough that's embarrassing in that data to be able to call themselves a whistle blower.
The second major distinction is that there is a serious question about Mr. Assange's associations, specifically with Russian intelligence officials. One can only claim journalistic status if one is not at the same time associated with a hostile government. The case of Kim Philby, who worked as a journalist for years, should be a troubling parallel. As with Mr. Philby, Mr. Assange has at a minimum made common cause with Russian intelligence, and at worst was a paid agent. That alone should disqualify him from claiming journalistic status.
1
If Assange should be arrested and prosecuted for publishing stolen US secrets that are true, why shouldn't have the NY Times and WaPo reporters who collaborated with Daniel Elsberg to publish the secret Pentagon Papers which also were true also have been arrested and prosecuted? Or is the difference, the former hurt the anti-Trump "Resistance" while the later was against an unpopular undeclared war?
2
And what of journalists also encourage sources to steal confidential information? Do journalists do that too and is that ok? Can journalists work with and encourage hacking organizations, is it ok as long as they themselves are not doing the stealing?
Boy, this is a tough one. My head is like listening to a tennis match, an endless volley. Now,let’s put aside all the arguments for a unified principle and just have friends of wikileak take notice that the man they elected just bit their master.
1
Assange was a Spying Wiley Coyote trying to blend in with the herd of journalists by imitating them.
In most journalistic circles, if someone breaks in to a vault of secrets, or helps someone accomplish that, then tries to pawn them off as a possible whistle blower story, most legit organizations seek some sort of confirmation or comment from an agency within government before publication can proceed. Maybe the courts have to get involved to adjudicate how much can be disseminated publicly.
So when bad actors such as National Enquirer and Faux News misinform the public with false stories, spreading lies and opinions about the lies, then also as a tool for marketing to the most gullible, that is A.O.Kay...?
It appears Assange was peddling access for espionage purposes on government intelligence while claiming it for ‘journalistic’ purposes.
However, Putin and the Russian GRU were his biggest subscribers and was solely ‘news’ for their consumption and use...!
1
Charging Assange for attempting to help Manning access classified Defense Department databases is vastly different than charging him for receiving and publishing Democratic National Committee email. WikiLeaks publication of DNC email revealed that the DNC was stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders to ensure Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. The DNC cochairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign, and her replacement discovered the DNC had signed a secret agreement with Hillary that gave Clinton control of DNC campaign expenditures.
Dirty dealing within the DNC was a far greater threat to American democracy than Russian meddling. Exposing it was a true whistleblowing event. Putting Assange on trial for the DNC exposé would be a threat to America journalism and American democracy.
4
It's a threat to accused rapists.
Don't women care about being safe?
1
Free Press?
That's an oxymoron, right?
Anyone who commits his friends and supporters to parting with £240,000 when he fails to answer bail is probably not the saviour of democracy. Yes, the securities paid the bond. No, Assange has not offered to reimburse them. Should we ask Assange supporters to pay £1,000 per person for their "freedom" vote?
1
I don't see how stealing private information, assisting with theft or knowingly receiving stolen information is journalism. Besides, a legitimate journalist would have his/her story vetted by credible colleagues or editors for factual errors or speculation. None of that happened here.
If it happened to any of us private citizens, we'd consider it theft, pure and simple.
3
Part of my dilemma is that information can become "classified" to help cover up criminal or embarrassing government activities.
The Pentagon Papers, for example, revealed vast lying and corruption. The classification of this material appeared to be motivated by governmental stealth.
Should "deep throat" have been prosecuted?
A Supreme Court justice once asserted about pornography, "I know it when I see it." Ms. Goldberg is asking where and how we draw the First Amendment line.
To avoid a prior restraint on freedom of the press, our laws must be clear, so that one will know when a line is being crossed.
It may be said that Lincoln trampled on our First Amendment rights while Jefferson Davis did not, but Lincoln did so in an extreme situation and his decision was, pragmatically speaking, correct.
Free speech is not absolute, we recognize limits: can one shout "fire in a crowded theater?"
I have no sympathy with Assange, but we must assiduously protect our precious First Amendment rights. The offenses with which he is charged may not have sufficient gravity to justify weakening our safeguard of freedom of the press.
There seems to be a point where one goes too far. Defining that point prior to a situation arising is a legal necessity that may defy the most scrupulous efforts.
We may be left, as Lincoln was, with practical necessity.
I don’t consider the arrest of Assange a threat to the free press any more than I would the arrest of “whoever” at The National Enquirer was involved in hacking Bezos’ phone and/or blackmailing him. The difference between how ethical reporters and publications obtain info and what is illegal is pretty cut and dried.
This thought puts a little smile on my face ...
The Obama administration passed on this. Now the Trump administration decides to go after Assange in spite of the fact that Trump praised Wikileaks and probably worked with Assange during the 2016 election. And Trump is now acting like he’s never heard of Wikileaks. Could it be that Wikileaks was ready to release an embarrassing info dump on Donald Trump?
2
Assange is a criminal. And likely associated with enemy intelligence agencies. Journalists would be wise not to embrace his theft of the American people's property. I was a journalist. I know journalists. He is no journalist. Nor is stealing documents and uploading them into the cloud journalism.
5
Don’t put Julian Assange on a pedestal. He may embrace the freedom of expression, but he has abused it for achieving his own goals and gratifying his ego. He is no defender of probity, because he’s just an opportunist, not a conscientious journalist.
Although many see him as a hero for leaking confidential files and secret documents exposing what governments are up to and holding the authorities to account, I can’t forgive him for publishing the hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016, in an effort to destroy her prospects of winning. He did it out of vindictiveness because he hates her. Thanks to his meddling, we are stuck with the much loathed Trump.
According to BBC, Assange tweeted in November 2015 to WikiLeaks’ most loyal supporters:
“We believe it would be much better for GOP to win..... Dems+Media+liberals woudl then form a block to reign in their worst qualities,” he wrote. “With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute.” He paused before adding, “She’s a bright, well connected, sadistic sociopath.”
When it comes to the 2016 election, he has done much harm. It’s up to the American public how to deal with him.
2
The Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of the press. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it guarantee to the government the right to secrecy.
2
Assange crossed a line when he (tried to) helped Manning crack a password to hack a classified computer. Both knew it was illegal to do so. That is a criminal conspiracy, not journalism.
Pompeo has alleged that WikiLeaks is a foreign Intelligence Operation when he headed the CIA. IF the CIA or the FBI has some proof that Assange or WikiLeaks conspired with Russians or some other foreign power, then DOJ can file an indictment. UK requires that all alleged crimes must be known before they will grant or deny Extradition.
2
It is vital to protect the free press and the truth. If I had to chose between protecting the free press or convicting Assange, I would chose the free press.
1
Ms. Goldberg's column is a nasty example of obfuscation, half-truths and fear-mongering. It is a cold, calculating hit job.
First, what Assange may or may not have helped Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning do was to expose cold-blooded murder by US troops. That was shown in graphic detail on the video that Manning released. That was a video which totally enraged the US power structure, from top to bottom. But not for any good, moral reason. Quite the contrary, it was, as I stated, an exposé of cold-blooded murder, and sit was celebrated by the troops who carried it out. Not exactly something that makes one want to thank them for their service. Further, good liberals, while this atrocity took place during the Bush regime, it was the Obama regime that carried out the persecution (not prosecution), not the Trump regime, to be clear.
Assange was accused, by liberals, of "emotional manipulation." Strange way for the Democrats and their supporters to whitewash murder. But hey, the Dems & the Republicans often work together when it comes to atrocities. Lots of history to back that up, like Vietnam, to cite one example.
Assange's sexual assault was a violation of Swedish laws about wearing a condom during sex - it occurred with a prostitute (or two - could have been multiple occasions). That was wrong, period. But raising the specter of sexual assault is a buzz-word, and Ms. Goldberg knows that.
4
Assange is not a journalist. He is an foreign intelligence asset, who, like Trump. belongs to Little Putin.
American journalists who identifies with Assange, should examine his conscience, and ask themselves what is more important, the security of the nation, or sanctimonious righteousness?
2
Mr. Assange,
Give us Donald Trump's tax returns for the last 10 years and we'll go easy on you.
Thanks a bunch,
America
5
We should watch charges against him carefully, because of the chilling effect it could have on real journalists and whistleblowers, and the vital role they play in our democracy, and in bringing to light government abuses. But Assange is no journalist, he is a hacker, and a racist and egotistical bully at that, even according to those who were giving him sanctuary these last years which is part of why they decided to stop protecting him.
He doesn't just seek to bring to light government abuses he breaks into people's personal accounts to reveal photos and other sensitive information about them. And his willingness to disseminate the DRC emails, even if he didn't know they were from Russia, shows he has no boundaries or ethics. Releasing them was a purely political move and one meant to show he had the power to reveal anything he wants to. I would feel this way even if it was GOP emails, because supporting the random hacking into people accounts and then publishing that information is something we have to stand up against if we are to have any right to privacy left anymore. Those are the things I wish he was being charged with.
The fact that one of the things he happened to reveal was an unconstitutional government program, thereby doing a service to the American people, doesn't make all of the other things he has done okay.
Since when was Julian Assange a journalist?
2
Not many are addressing the credibility of government. Like Trump trashing U.S. government's "credibility" by lying about Iran, repudiating its agreement achieved by Obama, President Moreno trashed his government's "credibility" by repudiating the asylum for Julian Assange by President Correa. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ecuador-rafael-correa-lenin-moreno-strips-wikileaks-julian-assange-asylum-status/ With their well-documented record of lying and back-stabbing over millennia, we can trust government at our peril.
8
Using the same reasoning, Woodward and Bernstein could have been indicted for conspiracy to obtain government secrets.
3
How? Watergate wasn't classified information.
1
Assange has not been charged for dissemination of information. He has been charged with helping Chelsea Manning break a code so that she could use someone else's password and hack into a confidential database. This has nothing to do with journalism or the first amendment. If you rob someone and them publish a story about the robbery -- you can still be charged with robbing a person. Journalists are not protected from their criminal acts. Criminals cannot wrap themselves in the first amendment. Now THAT would really degrade the first amendment and create a worrisome slippery slope.
1
Is it just me, or was anyone else hoping Julien would pull out a crumpled copy of Trump's tax returns from his back pocket as they were loading him in the van?
83
First of all, Assange is charged with what are essentially hacking charges, not anything to do with First Amendment freedom of the press issues. Read, think, write: https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-britain-julian-assange-arrested-20190411-story.html. The author admits as much, then continues on a flight of fantasy that useful to the purpose of cudgelling Trump. And Trump certainly deserves cudgelling, but he deserves right and just cudgelling. To cudgel Trump unjustly as the author does here is simply to strengthen the monster.
More salient is the role of the press, which after all is a for-profit enterprise. If the pen is mightier than the sword (and it is) then if We the People have the right to regulate firearms, we also have the right to regulate the press. Most advanced nations do so. For example, in France, publication of political campaign content is barred in the hours preceeding an election. As with our Second Amendment protections, the United States of America is an outlier among advanced nations with our First Amendment protections. Do the profits of the media outway the right of American's to comprehensive yet unbiased reporting?
BTW, if the press had been nearly so honest in challenging the Administration during President Obama's tenure in office, 99% of current complaints from the Right would be moot.
1
What proof do you have that Russia was linked to JA? ... except that it fits the narrative of the past 2 1/2 years. . Schumer loved JA until he leaked the fraud that is the DNC.
JA has avowed any Russian involvement.
Asking Manning for more information is not a crime -- Manning had the access. He was trying to hide
JA is not a US citizen and he did not publish on US soil -- game over. The Obama DOJ did nothing for a reason ....
5
What is the perimeter of investigative journalism?
@Ed: If the prosecution of Julian Assange is permitted to move forward, that perimeter will be found to have shrunken considerably.
2
The reckless actions of Manning and Assange put my son’s life in danger while he was serving his nation over three tours in Iraq .
Spare me the civil liberties hand wringing by those who do not have their loved ones put in danger by seriously troubled individuals ( Manning ) or truly evil narcissists ( Assange ) that think nothing of their actions beyond their selfish desire for granndious publicity
48
>>> "The reckless actions of Manning and Assange put my son’s life in danger while he was serving his nation over three tours in Iraq."
There is no reason at all to believe that to be true.
Unless, of course, you mean that revealing war crimes by our military in Iraq endangered your son. With respect, if that's what you believe, I suggest that you reconsider.
The war crimes themselves create much more danger for servicemembers -- in Iraq and throughout the world, now and in the future -- than revealing them to us ever could. I assure you that the people in Iraq were well aware of these atrocities without help from WikiLeaks. They are there.
33
@Robert Flynn Johnson - The reason your son was in danger is because his country sent him there for no good reason.
32
@Robert Flynn Johnson Sorry, but those who put your son's life in danger were the war criminals who invaded Iraq on the basis of a pack of lies. Not those who have exposed the lies.
33
The Constitution tells us that our government must not "abridge" the free press. It goes without saying that foreign governments must also not be permitted to do so. I also read this as an indication that de facto in-house propaganda organs like Fox or Russian RT or Assange's WikiLeaks (in 2016) cannot possibly be members of the Constitutional "free press." Otherwise, the government would be violating the Constitution.
By the way, the Washington Post today writes that the aid the Russians gave to the Sanders campaign, and the mayhem they caused via the Sanders campaign, was much more significant than we knew. They write that Mueller's report will tell us more. Finally, the Post cites an early interview that Sanders gave to Vermont public radio in which he says he is aware of what the Russians were doing.
1
Julian Assange did not hack into computers. He passed on classified information.
The individuals exposed by Julian Assange were committing crimes and will continue committing crimes as long as we attack the messenger instead if confronting the criminals Assange exposed. He gave us a gift of the truth. Be grateful and do something to stop unlawful, corrupt, deadly behavior and punish the perpetrators.
2
I wonder if the commenters on this article will be singing a different tune when the precedents set in this case are used to jail journalists from more respectable outlets. Just because he is (perhaps rightly) universally despised doesn't mean people should turn a blind eye as this administration uses public disregard for Assange's fate to expand the criminalization of investigative journalism that began under Bush & Obama.
2
Years ago I respected, for the most part, what wikileaks was doing. Now, I think Assange might be either a Russian agent or puppet.
Tell me, does wikileaks ever expose Russian govt corruption or crimes? China's? I honestly don't know.
1
The irony is that anarchy empowers authoritarianism. That's probably universally true.
Ms Goldberg claims, “What’s troubling, however, is that his indictment treats ordinary news gathering processes as elements of a criminal conspiracy.”
The publication of “classified” documents requires a long daisy chain of acts by individuals with personal responsibility for consequences.
Suppose the following hypothetical. The Manning- Assange conspiracy succeeded in stealing the blueprints for missle launching drones used in Yemen and Afganistan. Suppose further that they did not “publish” the documents on Wikileaks. Instead, they sold the documents to Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea to finance Wikileak’s mission.
Absent publication, would this conspiracy constitute a prosecutable crime? Let’s suppise the consensus is inarguably yes. Assume instead the last step in the conspiracy chain was in fact internet publication. Why is the last act of publication,regardless of motive, not just fruit off the same tree.
If one claims that prosecution of publication is precluded because freedom of speech is absolute then the chain of criminal steps that enabled publication must also enjoy absolute immunity. This is patently absurd.
There is no doubt that freedom of speech , like any other freedom is never be absolute. For reporters, media, and internet platforms to claim otherwise is to place utility above justice. Let all publish all and then let them justify their act in court like ordinary citizens must.
It is standard conspiracy law that conspiracy can be achieved by soliciting another to commit a crime and having the other agree to do so. Moreover, solicitation is achieved by purposely encouraging another to commit a crime. So the criminal foundation for prosecution here is actually straightforwardly sound.
The issue is that journalists often encourage people to commit crimes by disclosing information they are not permitted to disclose. Journalists should know: they are allowed to be passive conduits for such information. They can put out into the public that they have secure ways of receiving information anonymously. They can do so even knowing that doing so will encourage people to break the law to obtain information because the mens rea for solicitation of a crime is purpose; mere incidental encouragement is not criminal. But that's the rub: purposeful encouragement is solicitation, and if it's taken up, it's conspiracy.
Note, this case cuts both ways for Trump. This form of solicitation is very much the sort of thing Trump's son and staff seemed to do with Russians when approached about getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. It has been written off as a failure to conspire because nothing happened at the Trump tower meeting. But the attempt to conspire seems clearly to have been present. Whether it ought to be the basis for prosecution is another matter. But if Assange can be prosecuted in this context, that sword might cut in another direction as well.
1
You know what, humans and it seems , particularly Americanos are superbly equipped to monitor each others behaviors..we are masters of the..I like to call it 'gun n' run' critique.
Gawd we luv it..in the Music man, of course we might be reminded of that Hermione Gingold led performance of..Pick a Little, Talk a Little...cheep, cheep..cheep, eh ?.
But sadly we are worse than terrible when it comes to mitigating those behaviors..our let down it seems might be in the stringent application of the truth or perhaps better put definition of a lie..Mr. Assange and his devotees when put to any fair test..are i'm sorry very flawed messengers..and easily add the ol' 'whataboutism' dynamic in their faux attempt at transparency.
It's Journalism 101, that you can accept and publish information from sources no matter how it is obtained. Where it comes from or how it is obtained not the responsibility of the journalist. It's also Journalism 101 that if you participate in the gathering of the information through illegal means that you can be charged under any law you break. Perhaps Julian Assange is guilty of breaking the law when he conspired with Chelsea Manning to hack into government systems and steal government secrets. Perhaps not. But charging him and trying him under laws governing hacking and theft are now and always have been legal. He is also considered innocent until proven guilty.
So in short, our laws protect Assange when he publishes, but cannot protect him if he breaks a law while collecting that information. And that's how it should be
1
Journalists are using this moment to make big pronouncements about the mission of the press in a democratic society. Well, this isn't Edward Murrow's world anymore. Journalism, like too many American institutions, has been corporatized, making the big pronouncements ring awfully hollow. Even if principle were once involved in this man's efforts, his ego got the best of him, and he's certainly no hero. He trafficked in stolen information and cherry-picked its release to hurt one candidate, and with that, whole swaths of citizens of the US and the world. I am heartened that the lawyer for his accuser will now be able to prosecute her case, the reason he hid away for 7 years. Time to pay the piper.
1
I'm very surprised that Ms Goldberg does not mention the problems that Ms Manning is currently facing.
Ms Manning was last month sent to jail indefinitely after she refused to take part in a Department of Justice investigation into WikiLeaks.
We all will remember that president Obama pardoned Ms Manning. But the thugs that are currently running the United States are trying to undo about everything that president decided.
The arrest of Mr. Assange must be seen in this perspective: the Trumps and Boltons of this world are not specifically targeting Mr. Assange, they just want to shut up Wikileaks and make every single person think twice before revealing information that could damage the reputation of the American army and his security services.
That is why they have also decided to deny visa to prosecutors of the International Criminal Court.
Quoting Reuters: "The United States will withdraw or deny visas to any International Criminal Court personnel investigating possible war crimes by U.S. forces or allies in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday."
Whatever it takes, and even if it is against every international agreement, the current American government will do everything possible 'to make America great again'.
Please Democrats: don't start killing each other during the primaries, just make sure that the rest of the world will not have to undergo 4 more years of Donald the Great.
2
The assertions by the author and commenters that Julian Assange acted as an agent of the Russian government in the matter of the DNC e-mails is not true. William Binney, former technical head for the NSA, in association with other digital forensic experts, has determined that the DNC e-mails that Wikileaks published were not remotely hacked by anyone. Rather they were leaked by someone with direct access to the DNC's computers, probably using a thumb drive or similar device. Binney and associates know this because the transfer speed for the download of those files (as found in the meta-data in the files) was too fast to be done via the internet.
Further, former UK diplomat Craig Murray has publicly stated that he met one of the individuals responsible for the leak while in the Washington D.C. area, and that person was not a Russian. Given the above, the Times and all other commentators should stop claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC e-mails and gave them to Wikileaks. That is a claim that has been disproved.
2
If all Assange did was receive some information and print it, it would be on the lines of Freedom of the Press and would would have every right to print it.
That is NOT what he is being charged with. He is not being charged with printing or giving out that information.
He is being charged with HACKING: conspiracy to hack a computer to disclose classified information that “could be used to injure” the U.S. He conspired with Manning: Assange "helped Manning, crack a Defense Department computer password in March 2010 that provided access to a U.S. government network that stored classified information and communications."
Hacking computers for a story is NOT Freedom of the Press, it is a Criminal Offense. At least CNN has the decency to await for Democrats to leak it to them...
The irony is the Democrats like Hillary who are squawking about Assange being charged, stood up for manning, and obama commuted the traitor of the United States' sentence. So. the Democrats once again stood up for anyone, even a traitor, who could prove they could harm the United States, and was a criminal to boot.
Manning is in jail now not for his treason, but for refusing to testify against Assange.
So, quit trying to pass off Assange as a Hero, he is a criminal Zero. He conspired with Manning to hack the United States and did it successfully, then disseminated that classified information, which put American lives in jeopardy.
They both belong in prison.
1
With very few exceptions (such as the nuclear launch codes), the government shouldn't get to keep secrets from the public, also known as taxpayers and voters . Individuals, however, should get to keep secrets from the government, and from corporations, with the sole exception being criminal behavior.
Yes, the arrest of Assange is a mortal threat to the Free Press. Additionally, any political censorship represents a threat to free speech. Major American media routinely censor ideas, speech not acceptable to current Left dogma propaganda. Thinking people understand when government is no longer legitimate, exercises police state behaviour. Assange is not our enemy. But everyone already knows this..
4
Suppose he had been alive during WW2 and leaked the allied plans for the Invasion of Normandy or a list of all Gay men in countries where Homosexuality is a crime I wonder how many people would feel sorry for him if he was arrested.
Many of your comments describe Assange as a russian agent and a criminal. These comments are hateful, unkind and contrary to our American Constitution which presumes every person to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this year 2019 or 1984 per George Orwell?
4
Who are you to say "he deserves his fate"? Didn't the NYTimes publish the Wikileaks info? Have you watched the pitiless slaughter-of-innocents video Manning rightly shared? Read Chris Hedges' take in today's Truthdig.
3
The problem with the US indictment of Assange is that it is limited to his publication of the 2010 Chelsea Manning information theft. In this case, Assange can make a strong argument for freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment.
Not so with Assange's meddling in the 2016 presidential election by weaponizing GRU-hacked materials from the DNC in collusion with Trump associates in order to damage the Clinton campaign and benefit Trump.
This latter criminal conspiracy naturally is not included in the indictment to extradite Assange. It would incriminate the Trump campaign.
1
Is Assange's Arrest a Threat to the Free Press? Is Guantanamo really such a bad thing if under three successive presidents it remains in business?
2
William Safire 2003
"What was left of the liberal opposition was creamed.Largely because the democratic reformers G.Y. B.N. and A.C. could not unite."
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/opinion/the-russian-reversion.html
Trump wins in 2020 .Yikes!
How he wins.
The Never Trumpers disappear
https://buchanan.org/blog/2020-socialist-america-or-trumps-america-136794
with the mission the only way to save the nation is by making sure the GOP wins
Julian Assange is a criminal who helped Putin help Trump. He's also a rapist - that is the original reason that he was hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy. The Trump Maladministration can ad will twist anything to the opposite of what it is. But they are going to do that anyway. Fear of the inevitable twisting and distortion should not stop punishment of evildoers. Assange is an evil man who has made our tired, sick world even worse than it would otherwise have been.
2
Was it the current administration or the career professionals that pressured Ecuador into evicting Assange? Neither? Both?
This is a headline from the Daily Mail:
"How years of U.S. pressure got Ecuador to finally hand over Assange just weeks after country got $10 billion bond deal to help struggling economy"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6911925/U-S-pressure-Ecuador-yields-Assange-arrest-bond-deal-help-struggling-economy.html
3
@NY Times Fan
The daily mail is basically the National Enquirer.
@magicisnotreal
OK, but unlike the Enquirer the Daily Mail is not in bed with the Illegitimate One.
Besides you can check lots of other news sources to see that Ecuador did indeed recently get $ Billions in loans from the organizations mentioned in the Daily Mail: IMF, World Bank, etc.
None of this PROVES a link between the loan(s) and the eviction of Assange but it sure makes it suspicious. The US is a heavy-weight in the organizations approving the loans to Ecuador.
“...But any legal theory that Trump’s Justice Department uses against Assange can also be used against the rest of us...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html
“...If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama...
...
“...More significantly, the Obama administration won a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in my case that determined that there was no such thing as a “reporter’s privilege” — the right of journalists not to testify about their confidential sources in criminal cases. The Fourth Circuit covers Virginia and Maryland, home to the C.I.A., the Pentagon and the National Security Agency...
“...That court ruling could result, for example, in a reporter’s being quickly jailed for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the Trump administration’s Justice Department to reveal the C.I.A. sources used for articles on the agency’s investigation into Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election...
Your words , not mine – let alone Trump’s...
He hadn't even been inaugurated, when this was published...
3
He does not deserve his fate. Give me a break. Neither did Chelsea Manning. Both of them did this country and the world a tremendous service by helping to expose crimes against humanity that would otherwise be kept hidden. Do not let your residual anger over Trump's election cause you to forget that fact.
Furthermore, the indictment does not accuse Assange of hacking. It accuses Assange of helping Chelsea Manning maintain her anonymity. That is a crucial part of journalism. Get your facts straight.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/
5
But where does Assange's rather obvious misogyny fit it?
1
Love or hate Assange...however we are witnessing the criminalization of journalism right before our eyes.
4
@Django, with rise of social media journalists’ jobs were already at risk. People are circumventing journalists and gathering news via social media. It’s the same with cable news and cable TV, people have Hulu Netflix they don’t need cable anymore. We got rid of cable in 2009 so we are spared talking heads, the only luxury we allow ourselves is Friday night wrap up by Washington Week, on PBS.
1
If the NYTs broke into the IRS database, stole and released ten years of Trump's, and McConnell's, tax returns, would that be heroic or a crime? I mean, if it's all about transparency... Since when is breaking the law "journalism"?
He hacked into the Defense Department's database and dumped hundreds of thousands of documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, some of which put actors in those countries in peril.
Then he skipped bail to avoid extradition for rape charges. Then he repeatedly violated his agreement with the Ecuadoran government to not hack anymore, and he proceeded to hack into the DNC database, then the Vatican's.
And he didn't take care of his cat.
But hey, if the Bots and the Trumpers want that kind of "journalistic" transparency, I'm sure we can find a Democrat out there with the talent to get whatever they want out of any database they choose.
Lawlessness is not journalism.
2
Aiding and abetting Putin and his murderous regime to undermine democracy here and abroad isn't an exercise of free speech - or a free press - worthy of any defense. Your lede just feeds a false narrative.
1
Julian Assange is not a journalist.
1
No.
Ridiculous. He was being evicted for being a parasite in the Ecuadorean embassy. It's incredible they put up with him for that long. Somebody has a sense of humor charging him with a crime that has a maximum sentence of five years in jail when has has been confined for the past seven.
This is journalistic self-delusion. If, instead of assisting Manning in merely hacking a computer system, Assange had murdered Manning to get to the machine he wanted to hack, would you really be asking this question?
I'm just curious.... If I were to leak some classified docs, or steal some and trade or sell them to our enemies, would I get to claim Free Press because I contribute to these comment pages?
The standards for journalism go from the respectable and honest press like the Times and WaPo to the Inquirer and F(alse)ox.
I think we, as a Nation, need to have a better definition of what really qualifies for journalism.
Since Assange helped get t rump elected I am hoping for hard labor for a long time as his payment.
1
It appears as though the only major distinction between the actions of Julian Assange and what the NYTimes has done repeatedly in the past is that the Times now seems to routinely be complicit in rebroadcasting whatever propaganda the government is feeding it. Witness the insane media blitz against Venezuela. This will probably keep all of you at the Times safe....until you become inconvenient.
3
Such actions amount to treason; First Amendment aside.
As a liberal who will die for free speech, I'm calling it: Assange isn't a profound truth teller. He's essentially a snot-nosed little brat who took money from the Russians and truly despises the United States.
2
Which, frankly, is why the Times has a Law department.
Hillary's "a bright, well connected, sadistic sociopath.” Bright???
1
If Assange were a journalist who believed so strongly in transparency that he was willing to play at the edge, he would have published the Russian documents he claims to have. He would not have criticized the Panama Papers.
If journalists want to maintain their protections, they cannot act as interested parties.
Give me a break. The free press should have ethics.
1
Assange is best described an odious person. He deserves to go to prison. He could have avoided that fate by behaving civilly to the Ecudorians. But Assange does not know how to behave civilly.
Pity that he will only have a short stay on the charges that have been brought.
Despite all the journalistic hand wringing going on about First Amendment freedoms. let's not elevate Assange to the level of Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg (who was charged under the Espionage Act and acquitted) leaked the Pentagon Papers in the hope of shortening the Vietnam War. Assange leaked US Secrets in the hopes of disrupting the American Election process. Both were successful.
2
I would avoid any sophistry justifying Assange's odious behavior in any way: it doesn't reflect on hardworking journalists - who, by the way, don't hack into computers for info. That's a crime.
It's ironic that Assange is such a narcissistic megalomaniac, exactly like the current occupant of the White House, whom he helped get elected. Assange deserves whatever he has coming to him.
3
1. He is not a journalist because he edited the video he first put out to hide what it actually showed. What it actually showed was proof that the Army was targeting insurgents who were on their way to murder innocents. A sad proof here is the fact of the two Reuters reporters being present. They were there to go and see the attack from the insurgents perspective.
2. He is not a journalist because he does not just report the facts, he edits and cherry picks things to do the US or whomever he is angry at the moment he is posting harm. He like Fox news is a propagandist not a journalist.
3. He is not a journalist because they do not participate, assist or offer 'how to' advice in the crime of stealing information they publish as a public service. Helping and encouraging a "source" to steal massive amounts of information the hands on thief has no idea of what the contents are is not the same thing as soliciting tips. It, that lack of knowledge of exactly what is being stolen is also proof the "source" is not actually a source, but rather someone attacking the entity from which they are stealing data.
So you see no journalist is in danger from prosecuting Assange as he did not act as and never has been anything like a journalist. I assert the counter argument, if he is not prosecuted the profession itself is in danger of being destroyed.
He like many of his ilk is just abusing a personal and incorrect interpretation of the first Amendment.
2
Does anyone, has anyone ever thought if Assange as a journalist? On the rare occasions I have given Assange any thought at all, the word “hacker” comes to mind, as well as “didn’t get enough attention as a child.”
2
Ms Goldberg, neither Assange nor Wiki leaks are a part of the 'free press.' It is this kind of thinking that is dividing citizens across the globe and turning people 'against' the 'fake news.'
He is not a journalist. He does not follow any kind of investigative mandates, nor does he confirm what he publishes.
The NYTimes, and CNN, and Fox News, and all the other news outlets need to take a step back, stop their emotional partisan agenda, and become news organizations or claim their publications as 'opinion' pages ONLY.
4
Ms. Goldberg is mistaken if she believes that Assange deserves his fate. Let's not delude ourselves that the US government's indictment of Assange has always meant to send a chilling message to the press and journalists that revealing government's embarrassing or shameful secrets at your own risk.
3
I realize that Ms. Golberg is an opinion writer, but that doesn't excuse her from not using facts available to her. Mr. Assange is charged with conspiring with Manning to commit computer intrusion and helping to crack a password. Thus his was an active role and not that of a passive recipient of information.
1
I have yet to see one shred of real evidence that Julian Assange personally had anything whatsoever to do with helping the Russians either to hack and/ or publish any hacked emails.
4
To answer the headline's question: No.
2
So the prevailing view here in the comments seems to indicate that, say, Daniel Ellesberg was rightfully charged with the Espionage Act for releasing the Pentagon Papers. It's the same thing, with the same parroted outrage against him at the time of Nixon: most of the 'hang Assange' crowd just like Ellesberg better.
From Wikipedia: "On January 3, 1973, Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 along with other charges of theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Due to governmental misconduct and illegal evidence-gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr. dismissed all charges against Ellsberg on May 11, 1973."
2
Assange has nothing to do with the press, free or otherwise. He is not a journalist. He's a Russian hack, doing Putin's bidding to help elect Trump. Assange is to the free press what El Chapo is to medicine.
2
no. he is not a journalist but a foreign agent intent on doing harm to the US and its institutions. an anarchist. just because you have an iphone, laptop, or other electronic device, post, blog does not make you a journalist - at least not when you are engaged in criminal conduct. he is responsible for his actions. + the US clearly is focused on his acts and not his speech content even though he intended/did irreparable harm to US diplomatic relations/interests. never saw him do that vis a vis Putin....hmm, wonder why? (not)
1
It makes no sense to say that prosecuting someone who publishes or writes anything must always be avoided on the theory that people involved in such activity are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Julian Assange engaged in theft. He stole information and then passed the information along, adding whatever personal embellishments and distortions suited his purpose.
It also makes no sense to say that, although Assange is not really being prosecuted for writing and publishing, some unscrupulous enemies of journalism – for example, Donald Trump and his cronies – will use the Assange case to silence the critical press.
Trump will lie about anything which can benefit him, and he needs no excuses. We cannot live our lives in constant fear that Donald Trump will make false accusations against good people.
Trump will behave that way, regardless of what we do or don't do. We simply need to keep calling him out on his lies.
1
It's one thing to publish classified information that the government does not want the public to see. it's another to assist someone in cracking into a database of classified information that you are not authorized to see.
The “fate” that Assange deserves is to be allowed to continue working freely to “afflict the comfortable”, i.e., do the work of journalism. That would indeed set a precedent, one that is dangerous indeed for those whose deceit and crimes such journalism reveals.
Goldberg, on the other hand, wants to have her cake and eat it too: approving the harassment and persecution in this case while warning that such abuse “can” be directed toward anyone. And so it will, precisely because so many, like Goldberg, actually support the enemy narrative justifying it.
2
No, it's not. Breaking into other people's computers and stealing documents is not journalism. Likewise, stealing classified information at the behest of the Russian government and releasing it is also not journalism.
2
All this wailing and gnashing of teeth and the only real danger here is to We the People of the USA from Mr Assange and those of his ilk.
You have to go to extraordinary lengths of dissociation and intentional blindness to certain facts to create the danger to the 1st amendment being fantasized by the press and Mr Assange's lawyers.
It is very much like the fraudulent claims of how awful it was that another group of foreign native English speakers who were abusing the first amendment for personal profit and to do harm to folks they did not like or approve of were held to account for that conscious abuse of the right to free speech.
1
In the world according to Goldberg, Assange is guilty because he helped elect Donald Trump. No other facts matter, but this allows her to make all sorts of assumptions which no one seems to challenge. The Russians did it!
This is seriously deranged thinking and adds nothing to the conversation.
2
Assange published an enormous dump of classified information resulting, among other things, in grave harm to anyone who was in touch with US government officials around the world. Human rights activists died. Secret agents died. Don't confuse legitimate journalism with what he did. That is the basis of the charges against him. His thinking, ambitions, motives are irrelevant. No one should be allowed to get away with doing this.
1
Leaking information to be published happens. Comey was preparing a bunch of memos to leak to the NYT while was still at the FBI. It helped him get TV time before a House committee and was really good advertisement for the book he had published. The leaked Pentagon Papers gave us a history of the Vietnam War that influenced the country against the war. The Supreme Court backed the NYT. December 4, 1941, issue of the Chicago Tribune was the headline: F.D.R.'S WAR PLANS! The Chicago Tribune also leaked a story that we had cracked the Japanese code system which alerted the military in Japanese to our war plans before the Battle of Midway. A grand refused to endite the Tribune. What Assange leaked that cause the most reaction was that the DNC determined that Clinton would be their candidate prior to the primaries and actively tried to stop Sanders’ surge. Assange brought transparency to a party that touted transparency. Could anyone believe that a person planning to vote for Clinton switched to Trump because of the leeks? Leaking is one thing. Publishing the leak is when the potential damage occurs. The government says he helped Manning crack the security system. Manning recently went to jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury. So where is the evidence about Assange's hacking help if Manning refuses to say anything? We would save a lot of money and drama if we just said, "Send him to Sweden to face charges there."
When he sided with the Russians to undermine our election, Mr. Assange threw journalistic integrity out the window and forfeited the protection afforded free speech and the press.
Worry about the leader of the most powerful nation in the world calling anything he doesn't like "fake news". That's the real threat to the First Amendment and our democracy.
I grew up believing, and I still do, that transparency is a good thing, and that we should know if our leaders are lying to us. Even if those leaders are from our own poitical party.
Apparently, most readers of the NY Times would simply rather not know that the NSA was spying on Americans illegally.
Apparently, most would rather simply not know that the DNC suppressed Bernie Sanders.
The NY Times itself has published dozens, if not hundreds of articles that used information from Wikileaks to expose corruption and duplicity in not only our government, but also the governments of foreign nations.
Assange had about as much influence in getting Trump elected as did the 80 Russian trolls in St. Petersburg that evderyone was blaming for a time: none. Hillary was a terrible candidate: Iraq war supporter, Goldman Sachs third way "centrist" and identity politician who was despised by half the electorate.
I weep for our nation when so many would rather not know the truth, but would instead suppress and vindictively punish anyone who reveals unpleasant truths. So many of my fellow liberals are driven by constant outrage. Rage is one of the seven deadly sins, but in today's culture, has become the standard approach to virtue-signaling. And so it goes for Assange.
2
Congress is supposed to be on the job, investigating and exposing executive branch overreach and protecting our rights. Our Supreme Court should stand ready to defend the Constitution from governmental intrusions.
A few in congress appear to be trying to do their jobs, but a larger number are actively aiding and abetting executive overreach. And yet a third group appear uninterested in anything beyond doing favors for their patrons. Meanwhile the Supreme Court appears biased toward the executive branch and is obsessed with human reproduction.
That leaves it to the free press to dig where they can and tell us what our government is up to. Investigators risk going to prison and many do. Reality Winner is serving five years for releasing a classified report to the press, a report that showed that the government was well aware that Russian agents were attacking our electoral system in 2016. To date, the government has done nothing to shore up the system. Without Ms. Winner we would never know.
Assange is flawed individual. But I would rather Assange go free than give the government yet another opportunity to throttle those who expose its misdeeds.
1
When we open up the New York Times, the expectation is that a journalist has taken the time to investigate a subject, organize the information and write a synopsis with truth in mind and accuracy. Merriam-Webster definition is the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media. Document dumps unaccompanied by any review or editing are not a journalistic by any stretch of the imagination. Encouraging someone to gather up information from a government, or a political candidate, or let's be honest, anyone that wants to keep private some information, and then putting it out on the internet for all to see may not be a truly criminal act from a journalism perspective. It isn't a free press issue, so much as a harbinger for allowing invasion of privacy. Just as hackers for Murdoch's rag in England recovered information from a phone by a suicide victim, which was determined to be a criminal act. So which is it? Private information from the government (or any of us) or a right to know? I would prefer a right to privacy.
An "information anarchist," who helps steal and then dumps information without review or purpose, regardless of real world consequences, is not a journalist and not afforded the normal protections.
3
The Assange arrest is not a threat to the free press, because Assange is not press and doesn't believe in freedom, which only works when you also have impartial judiciaries enforcing laws instead of helping actual criminals flee to hostile authoritarian countries like Russia.
Oh, and they arrested him for helping to break into a classified computer system, not for releasing the results.
2
Julian Assange is not now and never was a journalist. He's a computer hacker (albeit a now aged computer hacker). So to answer the question posed, No, his arrest is not a threat to Free Press. Certainly had he carved out a journalism career and was stopped from publishing legally gotten information, it would be an egregious overstep by the government to stop him and it would indeed be a threat to free press. This is not the case. The blurry lines between Wikileaks and real journalism are not really that blurry! He's accused of stealing information (with the sole intent of posting it to the internet). Anyone who views him as a martyr for the cause of free press is doing so merely to be able to point one more finger at the White House and the current POTUS, who we already know despises the truth. Assigning blame for the Assange arrest on Trump is not necessary as it does nothing to enhance the President's known reputation for discounting any news other than what he makes up in his own head. Assange is accused of a crime and he's being brought to justice. Threats to the free press have been made throughout history...this is not one of them!
4
There is, in my view, a big distinction between a news organization that publishes classified information that comes into its possession (protected by the First Amendment) and a news organization that encourages, assists and conspires with a third party to steal classified information that is then published (not protected). Accepting that Assange is a news organization deserving of First Amendment protection, he did the latter and is a legitimate target for prosecution.
4
I just read the indictment of Julian Assange and I urge readers to do the same.
What's being reported is that Assange cracked a security code that was necessary for Manning to access certain data bases.
But that's not what the indictment says. The indictment alleges that Assange and Manning conspired to crack the code. This means an agreement to do something illegal, not the actual doing of it.
This is not an insignificant distinction because this is what editors and publishers do all the time when they have a government source.
Whether it's the Pentagon papers or the EPA report on Flints water system, once that information is classified, any attempt to disseminate it without authorization is a crime.
What this means is that if the source says to a journalist, I've got classified information from the NSA on Trump's collusion, once the journalist says "yes, I'd like to see it" they have entered into a conspiracy to commit a crime.
It doesn't matter whether it is eventually published and it doesn't matter if the journalist actually receives the classified information. The only thing that matters is was it classified and did these two parties agree to share it.
If the government can hold this sword over the heads of the press then this will be the beginning of the end for serious investigative journalism.
If Ms. Goldberg thinks Assange deserves his fate she's forgotten a very important warning.
"If they come for you in the night, they may come for me in the morning."
7
A misapprehension underlies Michelle Goldberg's column and that of the Editorial Board about for whose benefit free speech and press are so important.
Absent government, it cannot censor anything. But when some domineering types create government, censorship becomes a problem for them. Here is how.
In many discussions of government, say, whether it should impose a carbon tax, we pretend it is legitimate; however, government does bad things to real people, for example, bombing children, or family separations, etc.
We the people are completely justified in using correct force against it, including deadly force. The benefit of free speech and press is that this gives the rulers the chance to change its egregious behavior, thus avoiding getting killed.
Since people discuss government's evils, free speech and press is a safety valve for the rulers by reducing their evils.
The vast majority of those who are part of government walk amongst us unarmed and are easy to kill. Of course, rulers want to keep their vast evils classified, and become agro with journalists such as Julian Assange, or with whistle-blowers like Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.
They ignore at their own peril and dismay what J. F. Kennedy warned them about-- that those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change necessary -- before he got his just deserts.
10
No right, free speech included, is ever absolute but must always be gauged against other rights it might infringe. Assange is an absolutist, which is to say, unencumbered by the nuance of reason. As an absolutist, he sometimes is on the right side of of reason but more often on the wrong side. I reject absolutism regardless of the ideal it purports to defend.
1
@Themis
His only absolute is his hatred for the USA.
In everything else he is self interested and narcissistic and he makes sure to edit what he releases to do maximum harm to the USA.
Julian Assange did not, as Ms. Goldberg writes, seek refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy to "to dodge charges stemming from an alleged sexual assault in Sweden" per se.
He sought refuge because there was good reason to believe that the Swedish charges were a pretext to deport Assange to the U.S. for prosecution.
5
@Steve MacIntyre
Paranoia is not a reason.
And yes he did go there to avoid the sex crimes charges. Sensible people call that consciousness of guilt.
1
Assange is a symptom of our times. If he dispassionately exposed government secrets, he would be doing a service to all of us. That he chose to side with one foreign government(Russia) to undermine the democracy of another(USA) makes him guilty of espionage. This is not a good man, but his type of service is necessary to keeping us free.
Manning, Daniel Ellsburg, Snowden are all hero's for exposing our government's malfeasance. Assange is not.
2
@bobbybow
Ellsberg does not belong on the list of those criminals.
Assange has hated the US since his childhood, WHY?
I was quite discouraged by David Greene on NPR this morning interviewing a former State Department official who tried to convince Assange and Wikileaks not to release of State Department emails. First off, Green sounded sympathetic to Assange and gave credibility to the belief that Assange is some kind of journalist. As stated by many others, dumping hacked emails is not journalism. Secondly, Greene had trouble understanding why State should not be more transparent, like releasing the names of foreign nationals it works with, since it is funded with taxpayer dollars. Um, do we really want that kind of information in the open to be used by adversaries, like China, Russia, and North Korea, and even allies, to hamstring and circumvent US policy abroad? Lesser observers might say yes, but in the long run, no.
2
Totally Agree. My esteem of Greene and NPR reporting took a big hit this morning.
Stop calling him a journalist.
Julian Assange = sleazy.
1
Yes.
1
He is indicted for "his alleged attempts nearly a decade ago to help former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning crack a password to a government computer"?
What did he do? Tell him to try "password123"? How can this be a crime?
Google "cracking password tools"...
1
All Goldberg apparently cares about is Assange's presumed "misogyny and anti-Semitism". (So? Such opinions are not against the law. Yet.) "Assange may well deserve to go to prison... (because)...he became a handmaiden to authoritarianism." (So? Have you not noticed the Republican Party is chock full of these "handmaidens"?)
Get real. None of this guff is grounds for prosecution. To attempt to attenuate the vacuous 'reporting', the remainder of the article is an unnecessary defense of journalists and "freedom of the press". Has Assange been accused of wrongful publishing? This is no more than an attempt to look serious.
Editor: Kindly eliminate specious argumentation, gender and cultural politiking from Opinion. Absurd.
5
Nonsense.
Donald Trump because President of the United States because 63 million Americans including 58% of the white voting majority made-up of 62% of white men and 54% of white women gave him a meaningful Electoral College majority.
Trump was not a covert stealth subtle candidate. Everyone knew exactly who he was and was not and voted accordingly.
While Russian military intelligence aka GRU hacked and meddled in the election by exploiting every facet of the American partisan political divide. Including the Democratic Party plot to defeat and deter Bernie Sanders and anyone who stood in the way of Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton's coronation.
Assuming that Julian Assange is a misogynist and anti-Semitic then he had and still has plenty of support in the Trump White House and Cabinet including two Jews Steven Mnuchin and Stephen Miller. Along with a huge swath of the Trump base that was exposed in Charlottesville and in every Trump MAGA rally.
Assange and Chelsea Manning exposed the ignorant incompetent stupidly of the Iraq war including covering up war crimes and civilian casualties.
The Trimp red hat replaces the white sheets and brown shirts of the past. Assange is not the problem.
The imperial President is the danger. Congress makes a baboon troop resemble the Founding Fathers. And the Supreme Court acts like a troop of chimpanzees. They already made and revived the satire of the " Planet of the Apes" film saga.
4
Perhaps you should stop calling him a journalist.
2
Assange case reminds me of the older Pentafon Papers case. The diffeence is the person whomexxposed thse secret papers was willing to go to jail and did. In this case, Asange, living abroad assisted an Amwrican citizen to ciommit breating a law and suffer consequencces while he emjoyed the "accolades". That us sheer cowardice. Snowder is worse. He just fled to the dsnctuary of the enemy and still is. I wonder whether he had helped Rasputin to steal more more US secrets including Hillary papers. He is Traitor. And Asnage is traitor-abator.
1
You sure are quick to condemn Assange from your comfy NYT perch. Was it really odious of him and WikiLeaks to release the classified US military “Collateral Murder” video from 2007 which showed Apache gunship operators indiscriminately (and laughingly) killing more than dozen innocent civilians outside Baghdad, including Reuter photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, who was only 22-years-old, and his 40-year-old assistant and driver, Saeed Chmagh?
“To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
5
Had he exposed the activities of paedophiles on the internet his activity might be seen as praiseworthy.
The truth is that the morality of journalism or hacking is subjective and relative.
I do not think journalists have any special rights above any other citizen no matter whether they expose the right or wrong truth.
I certainly would not defend the so called fox journalists.
I would not defend the warped fundamentalism of the white American churches.
In this case I dont think we should hand over Assange to a neo fascist administration enabled by Russia.
Your guy only reluctantly supported censure of Russia over the Salisbury poisoning when he couldnt hide from it. Why give him one of their agents of dissemination of convenient facts.
They will bury whatever he knows as surely as Mueller report and truth are being buried.
Lets interrogate him here and publish the findings without Barrs whitewash.
1
Julian Assange is not a journalist, and he was not behaving like one when he dumped all that classified material in 2010. A journalist would have reviewed the material in order to publish the truly newsworthy bits, and probably would have avoided publishing information that no one but other intelligence services would have any interest in. Assange was not just trying to publish information about the Iraq War, he was displaying his contempt for the idea of any kind of government secrecy. And in 2016, we was being a conscious tool of the Russian government to influence our election (which, incidentally, means that Wikileaks' communication with the Trump campaign was, in fact, collusion with the Russians).
2
I don’t care for Assange personally but as a citizen I need the information he leaked to make informed choices as a voter. I make no apologies for that.
5
"Free" press should not mean free to publish anything they want. That would be a form of tyrannic power of its own. How would the supporter of Assange feel if their private pictures and emails are published by WikiLeaks? Would they cheer WikiLeaks for having the freedom of press to do so?
1
It is obvious that the US is going to add espionage charges against Assange the minute he is US custody - and that would be a threat to the free press.
And for those who think that the US-UK extradition treaty prevents this: please. Good luck placing your faith in the Trump administration's respect for the sanctity of international treaties. The UK is leaving the EU, and is desperate for a trade deal with the US. They are in no position to object to anything the US does with Assange.
2
This is the perfect Best of Times, Worst of Times story. Shades of gray, left and right. Good guys, bad guys, sometimes the same person in the same paragraph. Unfortunately when it sorts out we will still have the same rancid system and collection of odious beasts running our lives and extracting value from our carcasses and souls.
1
It's a threat to rapists.
Isn't that what the women's movement wants?
Imagine… watching the arrest of Julian Assange and his physical extraction from the Ecuadorean Embassy yesterday reminded me of the Hannibal Lecter character. I mean think about it for a moment or two; serial rapist or killers aren’t trussed up, carried and whisked off to jail cells to await trial, like Assange was.
Imagine… asylums, opportunist, twitter and WikiLeaks gone the way of the original sin gone the way of Bradley Manning morphing into a Chelsea Manning character wooing a Svengali like character posing as a comrade in twitter arms. Talk about fairy tales gone the way of the ultimate opportunist, satisfying the whims of a disgruntled waif in search of self.
Imagine… wondering what cunning attorney might jump at the chance to offer his or her expertise Pro bono while enhancing their careers via media klieg time. Or wondering if ‘We the People’ will be on the hook for the cost of defending the antics of a wily opportunist with the offer of court appointed attorneys. Ooh-well… with all the spying going on; whose to say who’s who, or who’s the opportunist in this sorted tale of twittering fantasies gone the way of leaks!
Meanwhile, we have to listen to the liar in chief spout "I know nothing about Wikileaks. It's not my thing".
Please, Calgon, take me away!
1
Let us not forget the undisputed, clear facts here: Assange didn't steal the 2016 Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, HRC did. She never paid for this act of theft and deception. Assange just published the emails that proved what a thief and liar HRC really is.
Assange didn't fire from a helicopter on innocent people and killed them on the ground in Iraq, members of the US army did. And then they tried to conceal their murderous acts. Assange, with the help of Manning, just published the pictures.
I am glad that Assange and WikiLeaks stepped in where mainstream media failed in their duty to deliver facts that the world needed to know.
That the Russians would have appreciate that WikiLeaks did their bidding is understandable but that doesn't take anything away from the fact, that the perpetrators are the criminals, not Assange as the messenger.
2
Trump and Putin definitely more democratic AND truthful than HRC. Glad you are enjoying their open transparent governance so much.
Bernie was NOT a member of the DEMOCRATIC party. Why did the DNC owe him anything?
Podesta’s only mistake was being an idiot about his account encryption. Which WAS a big mistake.
“There is ample evidence of his misogyny and anti-Semitism. He might be known as an information anarchist, but by helping Trump become president, he became a handmaiden to authoritarianism.”
Yes. This is what perplexes me. Why would a man (Assange) who had effectively challenged The State by broadcasting its dirty secrets then climb into bed with Donald Trump, the vicious boastful sexist racist infantile power-hungry would-be autocrat?
Was there money involved?
Assange is no shining champion of resistance and freedom of speech. Nor is he entirely reptilian.
Maybe mean guys just like to curl up together on the floor of a locker room (and escape prosecution) once in a while.
1
I am suggesting a new series to replace Game of Thrones after this season. Just in time for the 2020 elections. “Game of Toilets”. First flushed = Donald J. Trump.
First, let me proclaim my complete contempt for a person who I believe is utterly despicable in so many ways. What's more, I would love to see him convicted and sent away for decades as punishment for his craven collaboration with Russia to help foist Trump on us. If he never again saw the light of day I wouldn't be a bit bothered.
OK, now that that's out of the way.
There are bigger issues involved here. Unless the government can prove Assange was involved in helping Manning break into US computers, any DOJ prosecution opens a Pandora's Box and sets a dangerous precedent. When he's not acting like Putin's useful idiot, Assange - and by extension Wikileaks - is practicing journalism by acquiring and publishing information that governments and other powerful organizations would prefer to keep secret.
I suppose this is one of those instances where I just have to hold my nose and throw my support behind a jerk who has contributed to the misery of millions by his actions in 2016. So be it.
1
Let's be cleaready. Arrange is not a journalist. He hides behind our protection of journalists, but he isn't a journalist. Note that even the orange one has only charged him with hacking, not with anything to do with publishing information. No charges for conspiracy to commit espionage, even though it's blatant, Judy with the hacking. Dare I say it, but this administration iso less inclined to prosecute journalists than Obama.
The only real threat to a free press is currently residing in the White House.
One can only hope and pray that it will be removed in 2020.
1
So you are concerned about yourself as free press, but are willing to throw Assange under the bus with your assumption that he was pro Russia and did it for Trump.
Does that sound like bias, a product of New York and our Times? The long fingers of the lawyer who was exposed and embarrassed?
2
The more important aspect is what can Assange tell us about Trump's treason.
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
1
Why does this article suggest that Assange has been indicted for hacking? He hasn't. He has been indicted for conspiring with Chelsea Manning. If you think trump's DoJ won't next use this charge against Post or Times journalists who solicited leaks from within the trump White House then I guess you're a lot more sanguine about what Trump represents than you're letting on.
2
Like you, Ms. Goldberg, I shed no tears for Mr. Julian Assange. Ducking into a foreign embassy--not some martyr for a free press or a young David slinging pebbles at no end of Goliath's--
--dear me, no! The guy was charged with rape. Nice. Very nice.
I am troubled by claims for an unlimited free press. And oh yes! Ms. Goldberg, I lived through the Watergate years. I remember--vividly!--the spurious cries of "national security"--Mr. Nixon twisting and squirming, trying to save his own political hide. It got nailed to the barn door. So much for "national security"!
And yet! . . .
Here's something I recall from--when was it? the 1970's? The government was endeavoring--very quietly, unobtrusively--to raise a sunken Soviet sub. So they could study it. Counter it. Get a handle on what our longtime adversary was up to--and capable of.
The New York Times ran the story--
--well aware of the "national security" issues involved. But these (they decided) were trumped by the rights and prerogatives of "a free press."
My loyalty to "a free press"--especially in these dark days of Mr. Donald J. Trump and his howling right wingers--that loyalty is unimpaired. Lord knows, we need a free press like never before.
Yet that sub case--that has always troubled me. From that day to this. So there it is.
But like I say--
--I contemplate Mr. Assange being hustled away--
--with dry eyes--
--and a slight smile.
Good riddance!
"There is ample evidence of his misogyny and anti-Semitism. He might be known as an information anarchist, but by helping Trump become president, he became a handmaiden to authoritarianism.
So Assange may well deserve to go to prison."
Really... that is what this comes come down to for this editorialist?
2
Why does everyone (especially journalists) forget the rape charge and on focus instead on the "leaking"? Assange should face trial for rape if nothing else. It's a serious crime. Well, for the rest of us anyway. Maybe not for the elite (and Assange is certainly one of the elite-- you don't cavort away from a sexual harassment or rape rap in the Age of Me-Too unless you are a President, a Canadian Prime Minister, or Julian Assange).
1
Assange is not a journalist, he's a hacker, possible Russian asset. If his dumps of stolen info were more targeted that would be one thing, but he wholesale released of classified military information and in so doing put countless lives at risk. Unforgivable............... Then there were his attacks on Hillary......
Assange is a criminal and should be treated as one.
He gave us the liar in chief and he is a hero ?
2
It's an interesting legal question that the courts will decide. On one hand, is this just theft or piracy? On the other, is WikiLeaks a real news outlet and as the Times did in the Pentagon Papers case prevail in court? Personally, the only credible charge that should be, but hasn't been, made is Assange's collaboration with Russia and perhaps Trump confidante Roger Stone in releasing hacked Democratic campaign emails and interfering in an election. But here, instead of justice and truth, we'll probably see with Trump and his Roy Cohn (aka William Barr) a coverup and a pardon.
In a word, no.
1
Mistress of equivocation and rationalization.
In the age of 'MeToo' why do liberals ignore accusations of rape and harassment when the perpetrator is a 'man of the left'? Sweden isn't exactly Putin's Russia or Trump's US. But Mr. Assange refused to face creditable charges from two woman claiming he assaulted them. Yet he remains a liberal hero!
Assange is not a threat to the Free Press.
He is, however, a huge threat to the MSM.
Once Assange tells us where he got the hacked DNC emails, the lies the MSM have been spouting for three years now will be revealed for what they are.
He is a threat to the MSM because he has never published false or incorrect information and that is the MSM’s specialty.
1
He is not the press, he is not a savior of democracy. He gave information to a bigoted, authoritarian minded oaf who parlayed it into the presidency using fear to drive the engine. He fled his home country to avoid a rape allegation and immediately tried to undermine a foreign election abetted by a US soldier lost in his(at the time) own body. Maybe he just surrendered in order to freely watch Game of Thrones instead of trying to pull the strings behind the scenes like one of their subversive characters.
How many lives have been saved by Assange, Manning and Snowden by forcing our military to be more circumspect with respect to its "kill 'em all, one of 'em might have been a terrorist" rules of engagement when attacking villages?
4
Michelle,
So when you receive leaked emails from the RNC re Trump's reelection campaign in six-months, you are not going to run them if they come via Russian intelligence?
This is what you have just suggested.
Are you a journalist or aren't you?
2
Nonsense, sad nonsense. Of course this arrest is a threat to the free press. Of course "he does [not] deserve his fate." What a sad column.
1
I only care about his cat.
1
As I recall, the Swedes get the first crack at Mr Assange, for alleged rape. The Justice Department may have to wait.
Assange should be hired by the Dotard administration. He has all the right stuff.
1
Is it “freedom if the press” to hack into government (or private) comluters in order to get a story? Is it “freedom of the press” to publish disinformation? Assange tried to hack into the computers that Manning did. He also blamed the DNC hack on a murdered DNC employee, even though Assange got his info Fromm Russian Intelligence. I suppose if Assange is a journalist then that makes The National Enquirer a real newspaper. Doesn’t the public deserve protection from these con artists?
1
"So Assange may well deserve to go to prison?"
"May well deserve"? For being convicted by this columnist of alleged legal acts ("misogyny"? "anti-semitism"? "acted as a conduit" "spread conspiracy theories"? "handmaiden to authoritarianism"), she doesn't like?
With press defenders like these, who needs Donald Trump? And if these are hanging offenses, what do you say of "journalists" who promote foreign invasions? Quite a few of them live on this page.
1
Julian Assange committed espionage. He's the head of a spy network. He's not a journalist. Assange belongs in prison for spying. Please don't compare Wikileaks to the New York Times.
1
The question is not whether Pentagon secrets should be secrets. It is not whether Assange is a nice person, or whether he helped one side get elected in this election or that. It is whether protection of the US Constitution affords protection for anyone, WikiLeaks or the NYT, who conspired with a soldier to get the soldier to steal information and break laws which apply to the soldier. The NYT published the Pentagon Papers, but it did not go and do or abet the stealing.
1
Assange's real crime is that he embarrassed the United States' perpetual "national security" state--the interconnected blob of government bureaucrats, defense contractors, and their think-tank and media apparatchiks. And to those who give it offense, America's national security state is a vindictive monster.
1
Michelle is correct in worrying about the precedent the President might be after. I can already hear the cheer of "lock him up, lock him up."
Trump has a penchant for using people and when their value to him has expired, he tosses them to the side like a used McDonalds wrapper. And if there is further value in demonizing them, the gloves go off.
Assange is the perfect target to demonize the "corrupt" press Donald already hates with a passion. And with an AG that will actually walk in lockstep with Trump, Trump can and most likely will use the prosecution of Assange to set precedents that might weaken free speech.
It will all come down to how narrow the indictments are and how willing the British justice system will be to bow to the will of Trump.
Personally, I think that Assange is an extremely bad actor. He is no Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) or for that matter the many publications that reported on those documents. He might have played that role once, but desperate persons do desperate things. In the case of Julian, he has evolved into a vile publisher of revenge news. In some ways, he is no different from Murdoch or Pecker.
And while he and some of his supporters herald him as a whistleblower, he completely lacks the courage of true whistleblowers who have willingly risked all that they had to reveal unfortunate truths. Instead, Assange has hidden in a nation in the middle of London and clearly did not want to face the music. He is a coward.
There is no threat to a free press, just as long as the NYT and others don't hack into someone else's computers to get their news.
Publishing stolen material is not a crime, as Ms. Goldberg must well know. Stealing that material is a crime. If the NYT had burglarized government offices to obtain the Pentagon Papers, that would have been a crime, and that is closer to what Assange is accused of doing.
2
“There’s no reason to bring a case against him when you can’t actually put your hands on him,” said Miller.
Huh. When I read this sentence the very first thing I thought of were all the Russians Robert Mueller indicted. Was there any point in bringing a case against *them* when Mueller knew he couldn’t put his hands on them?
2
Assange is not and never has been a journalist and thus does not deserve the protections of a free press. For that matter, neither does Fox News, being a propaganda organ rather than a legitimate news organization.
3
I don't feel a sense of "relief" that Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein have "found a way to make the case (against Assange) without a frontal assault on journalistic prerogatives"... and with Richard Barr at the helm now I feel even LESS relief. The AGs seem beholden to a POTUS who views the press as the enemy of the people and the GOP Senators have not said anything that makes me feel they disagree with him. If Mr. Assange is convicted on a technicality I expect reporters on CNN, MSNBC, and maybe even the NYTImes to feel a chill... I won't be relieved until the GOP stands up to the President's assertion that the press and the media are enemies of the people.
One of the interesting aspects of the case of Mr. Assange and Wikileaks is that so many thought him to be a hero as long as he was releasing information which suited their political biases (despite the charges in Sweden), only to turn on a dime and despise him when the worm turned, and he was perceived as hurting their causes. I don't myself classify him as a 'journalist', but one can't switch an opinion of him or Wikileaks just because you suddenly don't like the message. That darned First Amendment is just so awkward sometimes!
“In the 2016 election, Assange acted as a conduit for Russian intelligence services that had hacked emails from top Democrats.”
This is why he needed to be arrested. He was not trying to protect the American people...he was working with the Russian misinformation bureau...meddling in our election to help elect trump.
It doesn’t require any real sympathy for the plight of Julian Assange to recognize the groundwork that’s being put in place.
The United States is moving in a direction which will allow for the incarceration of political prisoners, beyond the extent that we already enforce this practice.
One day it’s Barrett Brown facing half a century for copying and pasting a hyperlink, the next it’ll be a journalist working at a major media outlet.
How does one define, “extraordinary rendition,” exactly?
1
I think we all know where this Justice Department and Mr. Barr will take this case---they will attempt a full throttle attack on traditional journalistic practices---all but wiping out the goal and substance of the first amendment to the constitution. I am not even certain, with the composition of our Supreme Court, that they would see anything wrong with putting the clamps on the free press.
1
Is Julian Assange a journalist? Knowing all what he has done, does not make him a member of the Free Press. Assange has been under disguise. He cannot have it both ways. If he is not a true journalist, he is a spy or even a traitor. Many argue trying to distinguish between his actions. Assange, himself does not know who he is.
Let us not try to include Trump's perception of the media here. That has nothing to do when trying to determine who really Assange is.
Difficult to accurately characterize Assange- because he has become someone that he didn't seem to be- from a whistle blower type entity to a fence for hacked information (questionably truthful at that) with ties to the autocratic regime of Putin -and an affection for Putin's Quisling- president* Trump.
I haven't noticed Assange's supporters displaying any reticence at all supporting him- even in the face of the sexual charges against him. Is it because he isn't running for anything? Or is there a bit of hypocrisy involved?
I think Goldberg and any journalist is on shaky ground when she talks about setting a dangerous precedent. Assange is a danger to any country that does not meet his demented standards, whatever they may be.
While journalists are held to high standards of truth, honesty, and fairness, why should people of Assange's ilk be accorded the same right. He doesn't care how the law is applied to others, but he demands it for himself as the aggrieved and persecuted "teller of truth". Put him in jail without giving him a bully pulpit to rant and howl how unfair life is to him...
1
As usual for Goldberg, an important distillation from a whole galaxy of coverage.
As one of his lawyers Kristinn Hrafnsson stated which sums it up succinctly: "The U.K. government needs to make a full assurance that a journalist will never be extradited to the United States for publishing activity. This pertains to publishing work nine years ago, publishing of documents, of videos of the killing of innocent civilians, exposure of war crimes. This is journalism. It’s called “conspiracy.” It’s conspiracy to commit journalism."
1
Ms. Goldberg, in the column's penultimate sentence, offers this:
"Now Assange has discovered, as so many others have before him, that betting on Trump can ruin your life."
****
Strikes me that, 'eventually' (i.e., if -- and 'then' when -- Assange might be able and about to 'leak' trump/trump, jr./other-trumpers' Russia 2016 "collusion" materials), neither Assange's now-pending indictment nor 1st Amendment issues will be the big story. The 'execution' of Julian Assange will be that.
And those that scurrilously put forth conspiracy fantasies about the death of Seth Rich ... and even that of Vince Foster a generation ago ... will then be 'misdirecting' that someone or some collection of 'ones' opposed to trump did the deed that will have been done on trump's own order, or
-- 'in all events' -- by actors acting 'in his favor.'
(Thomas Murray, an attorney in good standing, hereby affirms as follows: I am not now wearing -- and never ever have I worn -- a tinfoil hat.)
1
The DNC Wikileaks will be studied by academics for years for their documentation of just how pampered high-dollar donors were.
If you set aside the Bernie V. Clinton stuff, the details about making sure this donor gets that seat at a particular event was very revealing. We also know from the Wikileaks that Clinton told large private donors that she believed in open borders for trade and people.
None of this would have been known otherwise. My Assange's motives for this were hardly altruistic. But then the reporters at the New York Times do not work for free.
2
Funny how none of these articles mentions that Assange may go to prison or theoretically even be executed for exposing war crimes, while the people who committed or enabled said war crimes go free or got a slap on the wrist, or even enjoy a warm welcome from journalists these days for opposing Trump, like the war-criminal-in-chief, George W. Bush.
It should also be noted that Sweden has since dropped the sex assault charge, indicating that it indeed was just a Putin-like state-ordered hoax to get the hands of American 'justice' on Assange while simultaneously wrecking his reputation.
1
great phrase, 'handmaiden to authoritarianism'...let's popularize it!
So if a government commits war crimes, and then says it is illegal to expose those war crimes.....that's ok? Is that the line most commenters are taking?
Strikes me as every so slightly dangerous....
1
The mental gymnastics that columnists go through to reach their inevitable anti-Trump message are really something to behold. In this case, the Trump administration Justice Department several years ago brought an indictment against Julian Assange for assisting an American traitor in violating the law, a step the Obama administration refused to take. Remember, in two-and-a-half years of the Russia collusion sickness, New York Times columnists told America that Julian Assange had been Donald Trump's best friend, the guy who served as Trump's conduit to Vladimir Putin himself, as they rigged the 2016 presidential election.
So, when it turns out the Trump's administration, and not Obama's, was the one which decided to put Trump's best friend in prison, well, that just doesn't fit the narrative, does it? So Michelle Goldberg had to reset the narrative. Trump is no longer a villain for conspiring with Julian Assange, he is a villain for prosecuting him.
All roads lead to impeachment, it seems. Either it's the Electoral college, the Emoluments Clause, the Russia delusion, tax fraud, etc., etc. Yawn,... America is falling asleep.
I didn’t read all the comments, but I was disappointed that Michelle Goldberg did not bring up the biggest government leak, aka betrayal of a private citizen: Valerie Plame. The US Government didn’t like her husband’s analysis of WMD, and vindictively exposed one of their own CIA agents, Valerie Plame as retribution.
The George W Bush GOVERNMENT put a former government official’s life, who at that time was a private citizen, at risk, outing her CIA work. W then commutes Libby’s sentence, and of course, Trump pardons him.
What’s missing in this story and should have been included in Goldberg’s story, is Washington Post Robert Novak, took this information and published it.
So I ask the press, exactly where is that red line?
1
As usual Ms Goldberg gets it wrong. The problem with Assange's "leaks" is that information leaked often was classified and put people at risk. Assange is a traitor NOT a hero. But for uber leftists like Ms Goldberg, he is doing God's work of course. The uber left is trying to destroy America and ruin the economy which of course is like killing the golden goose. No thanks Ms Goldberg or AOC and company.
Michelle-- this guy is not some fearless journalist. He is a vigilante who justifies his illegal actions on a far far far left ideology. Whether he intended it or not, Assange hurt the Democrats and helped Trump get elected. He wants the West to burn to the ground. He's basically the Joker's nerdy hacker henchman. Down with Assange and his new beard!
I'm not sure I consider Assange a legitimate journalist. He lost that distinction when he decided to get in bed with Russians to sway the 2016 elections. Clearly, he had an agenda. What I find curious is the justice department under the Trump administration (the guy Assange helped getting belected) is going after him. Why?
That's the real story.
" an odious person who initially sought refuge in the embassy to dodge charges stemming from an alleged sexual assault in Sweden"
Indeed odious, but no surprise that Goldberg here resorts to guilty before proven innocent in today's perpetual fact free #metoo movement. This was a repeated and specious trope that was used by pols who meant to smear Assange for his role in leaking the manning info.
1
For the most part, the author is on solid ground.
But then there's this: "So Assange may well deserve to go to prison." Why? Because "there is ample evidence of his misogyny and anti-Semitism"?? Because he "leaked Democratic emails"?? Because he "helped Trump become president" and "became a handmaiden to authoritarianism"??
None of these things are actual crimes worthy of prison time, and I'm surprised a columnist of Goldberg's stature would think so.
The cliché about everyone always being in violation of some law probably is true, and not just a cliché, given the lack of restraint by legislators and the expansiveness of some regulation writers. To some degree, we all depend for our freedom on a certain level of restraint by prosecuting agencies. If courts were willing to accept government guidance, then without any change in existing laws or regulations, we all could be locked up if a malicious government put us in its crosshairs. The fact that most of us aren't locked up is proof that we have a tradition and habits of some degree of restraint. The fact that too many of us are locked up is a sign that malice has been directed toward some of us. All it would take is the substitution of enough people in various branches of government, and our system, with the same written rules, could become as authoritarian as that of any country that we're now inclined to look down on, just by actively going after people whom we don't actively go after most of the time now. Such as journalists. Such as...make your own list.
I find all of this hand wringing on whether or not his arrest is a threat to freedom of speech somewhat specious. In effect what we are really talking about in this case is freedom of access to information, and the "freedom" to publicize what ever we think should be public, no matter what.
There are things that should see the light of day, in fact be spotlighted. Too bad he didn't break into the National Inquirer and publish Trump's sexual misdeeds. But like it or not, there really is classified information which, if made public, threatens our national security, and indeed lives of people who work to keep the country safe, not to mention the rest of us.
There is a difference between merely exposing information and weaponizing it to undermine our constitutional rights, in this case, the right to free and FAIR elections. Which is what he did, with full support of the Trump campaign. For that he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And every aspect of his trial should be totally transparent so we know who his accomplices were and what they did. Unlike the farcical behavior of our current Attorney General who is doing everything he can to protect the President who was elected using subversion and deceit.
I find many of these comments shocking because they seem to turn on what one thinks of Julian Assange rather than what he represents.
And they ignore the presumption of innocence. The allegations of an indictment are what prosecutors hope to prove, not what is actually true.
And if you follow the whistle blower cases indictments are used to punish those who expose the truth in our government by subjecting them to relentless trials and eventual bankruptcy, even when they are exonerated.
Assange may be arrogant or difficult to get along with, but he acted as a journalist. Like many these days he published on line rather than in print.
And, as is the mission of Wikileaks he published original documents and let the readers decide their relevance.
Let's also not forget that this indictment is simply the latest in a series of assaults on journalism. Just ask James Rissen from this paper.
Obama, who promised transparency did more than any previous president to shroud his administration in secrecy. This included over classifying information, holding fewer and fewer press conferences and prosecuting whistle blowers with a vengeance.
The Assange prosecution is simply beginning with a single charge. More will come. No mention that the key material relased by Manning offered proof of war crimes by our government committed in our name.
This will have a chilling effect on those who risk everything so that our democracy can function. This is a very dark day for free speech.
1
@Drspock
"No mention that the key material relased by Manning offered proof of war crimes by our government committed in our name."
This is the critical statement. I'm also shocked by Michelle Goldberg's--in general I love Michelle Goldberg--failure to mention the horrific crimes perpetrated in our name that the hacked materials exposed. This focus on technicalities in the face of the deaths of thousands of innocent people is itself criminal, meaning in this case, grossly immoral. I'm shocked too by the number of comments in response to this article that also fails to mention the horrific nature of what was revealed.
1
Assange as a First Amendment symbol to be protected so that the free press can survive in the Trump era? Give me a break. In 2016 the Russians interfered with the presidential election, an invasion of America's democracy. And who was the handmaiden to Russia's Kremlin-directed misinformation campaign? Assange coordinated with the Russians not only to hack Hilary Clinton's emails, but timed their release to inflict the greatest possible damage to her campaign. American news organizations do not engage in attacks on our bedrock democracy, and to call such actions "editorial bias" protected by the first amendment is to entirely discount the crime he has committed. That's false equivalency at its very worst.
1
He tried and failed to hack a encrypted password that he knew was a part of the credentials needed to gain access to a government server.
This means attempting to crack a password automatically implies the cracker will use the newly learned information - it does not matter if the cracker is successful or if the learned information is used. The simple act of trying is the crime.
Then, in theory, the very act of attempting to access any digital account one does not own is the same crime.
Assange should never have been arrested. If it wasn't for him and what WikiLeaks found with the Clinton emails, we'd never have known the scurrilous nature of the Dem's machine. Secrets are far more dangerous than the light of day. Truth needs to come out, all the way around.
5
I see no circumstances under which Assange can be covered by either the journalist or press as addressed in the First Amendment.
We have to come to an understanding that just because any yokel can set up a blog, go on a rant or post material to the internet does not make him/her a journalist or place them under the intended coverage for the press.
What Manning and Assange did was pure espionage not news gathering and dissemination.
As individuals they have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not absolve you of the consequences of a criminal act. Obama was wrong to pardon Manning and any deaths resulting from Manning's selfish release of security information will always rest on Obama's head.
Imagine if one were to break into the ACLU's files and release them on the internet. Now imagine the ACLU's position regarding excusing the culprit based on the criminal was only exercising their First Amendment right.
If Assange is being prosecuted for his crimes, shouldn't HRC be expelled from the Democratic party for rigging the internal electoral process and other undemocratic practices?
3
Assange's arrest has nothing to do with prosecuting someone who threatened US security. Trump, of course, doesn't care about US security. He cares only about himself. I strongly suspect that Assange's arrest is about suppressing the Wikileaks-Trump connection that likely exists in the still-covered-up Mueller report. Any trial of Assange will be declared off limits to the public for reasons of secrecy, and therefore the connection to Trump will never be known.
@Umberto
I guess that is why Trump has called for the death penalty for Assange, and Manning, and Snowden.
@Daphne
Yeah, in 2010. Even then, it was just self-promotional bluster. Nothing he does is for the good of the country, it's for the good of the Trump brand.
Assange is not a journalist; he's a hacker, pure and simple. He puts a lot of lives at risk putting hundreds of thousands of pages of private files online. How many lives has this cost the military or the intelligence services? And how many lives in the US have been affected when Assange decided to skew the results of the presidential election? The dangerous precedent here is that any hacker can claim to be a journalist. Assange is nothing more than a reckless deux ex machina.
2
The thing most people are furious with Assange about is the email dump two weeks before the election. But it's important to remember that's NOT why he'is being charged. He is being charged because he released information that was very embarrassing to the U.S. government and military. And that's what makes his arrest a serious threat to freedom of the press. Irrespective of how angry any of us might be with him over his 2016 election antics, no one should be cheering this arrest, especially at a time when the press is under nearly daily assault from the President of the United States.
3
Is Assange a journalist or a politically motivated anarchist?
Is a nude photo art or pornography?
We have a process to sort out these issues through the courts and congress -- and how these issues are decided is the most perfect reflection of our current social norms.
Assange should look forward to his day in court. How the prosecutors and judges treat Assange will cast more light on the state of the United States than any secrets Wikileaks revealed.
1
If WikiLeaks was the conduit, as reported, between the Russian intellegence(Guccifer) and Roger Stone( Trump campaign adviser), then despite what Barr claims, there was collusion.
It leads to the question of why Mueller was called off before the Stone investigation was finished.
1
I believe Assange hacked trump secrets. Individual one, an entity against the free press, is not protecting anyone but himself. This has nothing to do with the free press. Assange selectively exposed secrets and helped manipulate an election. Much like individual one, he operated from a place of extreme ego. He fancied he would be a diplomat? How bizarre. Both Stone and Don jr are involved and Jr is traveling the world in luxury on our tax dollars. WE should all be very concerned about the rapid pace of what I consider a coup of our government. The people of this country have a small opening here to unite. There are armed militia across the country that trump will use as his personal army. WE are no longer safe. Beware. Wake up America and as always: KEEP HIM AWAY FROM THE BUTTON.
2
The free press implies an attempt to give the public honest, reliable information. Is it not odd that Assange was working closely with the Russian intelligence agency to release stolen information timed to do maximum damage to a political campaign? What was the purpose of this release? Why was it not all released at once? Why has Assange never released information critical of Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria or the Republican candidate or Republican party? Why was Assange critical of the release of the Panama Papers which revealed the corruption of associates of Putin ?
Anyone who suggests Assange is an "independent journalist" is either fooling themselves of are intentionally refusing to confront the facts.
He is an agent of Russia and has been for years.
1
The indictment of Assange is very thin gruel and I doubt it will hold up. The indictment’s most serious charge is that Assange was asked to help Manning crack a password but the indictment ends with the words: “Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password but ‘had no luck so far.’” This is likely why Obama’s administration, that had engaged in a war on leakers exceeding all other presidents, decided not to pursue the case.
Chelsea Manning who was imprisoned and tortured under Obama and ultimately pardoned is now rearrested for failing to testify before a grand jury—oh, how the deep state loves to exact its revenge. Assange has been their target for many years and the Trump administration is only too willing to do their dirty work, work even Obama was reluctant take up.
But Assange will likely appeal his case up to the European Court of Justice and I doubt that those jurists will ever agree to extradite him to country well known to the rest of the world as a state that regularly commits war crimes, including torture of its prisoners, and still maintains the death penalty.
1
I believe you will find that many readers, this one included don’t agree with your conclusion Ms. Goldberg that Julian Assange “ deserves his fate”, many of us in fact have also gotten over the fact that Hillary lost even though it was “ her turn” according to Wassermann Schultz and the DNC. Many of us also feel that the misdeeds of our elected officials and our nation need to see the light of day. Many of us feel the Mr. Assange leaks concerning the horrors of wars being fought for Israel do not make him anti Semitic. Many of us feel that the timing of the rape charges in Sweden are suspect. Many of us feel that continually lying or at best just hiding the truth and maintaining the status quo for the continual benefit of the one percent is not a sustainable approach to maintaining a Democracy.
4
The Assange case has nothing to do with press freedom.
The press enjoys the unique legal privilege of being allowed to receive stolen classified documents without punishment. If any other person took possession of classified documents they knew to be stolen, that person would go to prison for a long time. Separating the media from all other people in this respect is the proper balance between government confidentiality and press freedom.
The charge against Assange is not that he received classified documents he knew to be stolen. The charge is that Assange helped Manning steal those documents in the first place. There is simply no legal authority, and never had been, for the proposition that press freedom entitles the media to steal documents from the government - or to steal anything from anybody.
I have no idea whether Assange did what prosecutors allege - whether, that is, Assange assisted Manning in stealing classified documents. But that's what the prosecution alleges, and that's what the prosecution must prove - if not, Assange goes free.
What's so odd to me is that neither the Times nor any of the other mainstream media outlets that are raising the specter of suppression of press freedom is that not one of them would do what Assange is alleged to have done. Responsible media outlets routinely receive and publish stolen classified documents, but they never participate in stealing them.
3
There's no threat to the free press. Everything Assange released was directed one way. To sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign.
It would have been different had he done the same thing to the Russians and/or to Trump.
1
I would say that Assange is a pirate and revels in his performances of seeking information through the veils of security set up to prevent such inroads into all data available from the world to send to the world as a sort of Mercury or Hermes. Manning seems the complete victim but must have had her own reasons for acting along w/Assange somewhat in the manner of Jussie Smollet. The news has become an overgrown jungle and takes some serious scissors to get through all this. What an odd situation, Assange held for 7 years in the Ecuadoran embassy, otherwise known for what in London. Yes, Assange and Trump and those who believe they represent truth w/o filters or any semblance of neutrality damage further the bona fide press who face trials and tribulations from Trump et al in a managed campaign to prepare voters for the coming election. No press briefings, no tax returns, no Mueller report for citizens, just trumpeted bellowing from Trump.
Justice Brandeis wrote that first amendment rights do not extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Alleged actions by Mr. Assange, both in 2010, and 2016, if true, would have done more harm, by orders of magnitude, to the interests of the people of the United States, and, indeed to the stability and safety of the world order, than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Responsible publishers, including the New York Times, when having possibly exclusive access to highly classified material, first contact relevant government agencies, and listen to their arguments before using their own judgement as to whether or not to publish. Current law may be too broad in defining illegal publication of classified material. The government classifies much material simply to avoid the possibility of embarrassment. Narrow the compass of laws pertaining to criminal sanctions for exposing classified material, but don't give would be Assanges free rein.
2
Ms Goldberg is too simplistic in her article. The real question is intent. Bradley Manning saw something he felt was wrong and wanted to let the public know. He went about it the wrong way, but it's doubtful he had any evil intent towards the US, if he even thought about it.
Assange, on the other hand, has spent his entire time at WikiLeaks trying to damage the West in general and the US in particular; he NEVER publishes anything critical of Russia or China; in fact, he even criticised the publication of the Panama Papers as an attempt to bring Putin down. I'm no fan of SecState Pompeo, but he got it right (for once) when he called WikiLeaks a non-state hostile intelligence agency.
So let's not get wrapped around the axle regarding Assange and dangers of 1st Amendment rights being degraded; Assange isn't and never was a journalist.
10
He is not a journalist. He made himself the news! He is not a patriot, or a hero, or even a misguided "free press" zealot.
He is a stateless espionage agent and provocateur. He worked on behalf of a hostile foreign government, not for the betterment of the United States. He did not leave some viable path in his wake by which others may follow in order to do difficult but noble work. He committed treason, and then ran and hid.
The only good service he performed for the people of our country was to demonstrate how (relatively) easy it was to hack into sensitive government computers. For the he deserves a bit of regard.
3
The underlying issue is not whether Assange was involved in the illegal act of attempting to hack a government computer. The issue is whether the prosecution is politically motivated with the intent to intimidate the press.
If investigators look long enough and hard enough they are often able to find evidence of some offense. The New Jersey State Troopers who would follow black drivers for miles on the Turnpike until they changed lanes without signaling, pulled them over, and then found drugs in the traffic stop are a good example.
It will take years for the extradition process to run. But Assange has somehow antagonized both sides of the political spectrum, so he will not benefit from a change of administrations, unless a future President decides that freedom of the press requires him to go free.
Voltaire once wrote that "The English execute an admiral from time to time to encourage the others." Perhaps we will not prosecute someone who broke the limits of freedom of the press to encourage the others to go to the limits in the future.
1
I'm surprised by the question posed by this article: Is Assange's Arrest A Threat to Freedom on the Press. Michelle Goldberg, whom I greatly admire--and most of the commenters--focus on technicalities in the face of the horrendous truths that Assange, Snowden and Manning exposed. In my view, the question should be: Why did Assange, Manning and Snowden work so hard to uncover these truths despite the consequences to their own lives they knew would follow? What exactly did these activists expose?
5
Some comments here treat Assange as a hero for revealing some of the evil things our government has done. That is a good thing, but not in the way he did it. It is instructive to compare Assange to Snowden in this regard. Snowden sought out reputable journalists and gave them the information he had stolen. They, in turn, combed it for relevant things to publish, while holding back information that might cause unnecessary harm to people. Assange, on the other hand, simply put everything online for all to read. That is not journalism, and not responsible. Yes, our government has done very evil things, but they, like journalists, have a responsibility to protect certain secrets in order not to cause undue harm. As one earlier comment noted, Assange acts as though the government (all government) is the enemy. But in democracy, the government is us. We must make it responsible to us, and we need whistleblowers (like Snowden and Manning) to show us when it is not. But Assange is not a responsible whistleblower.
6
@William S. Monroe
"Responsible whistleblower"? I believe all the kerfuffle about the so called "exposed secrets" was thoroughly investigated and not one of them caused harm to anybody. Regardless, if you believe in a free and "open" press and understand the meaning of the word "media outlet" then you would know that in the traditional sense, the New York Times and other outlets have a stake in promoting their very own slanted view of politics simply in their choice of what goes on the front page in its most simplistic sense. No one is entirely unbiased. Perhaps putting the information out there "in the raw" has the necessary effect of removing the politics of the editing choice and maybe in this world of polarized reporting, that might be considered a good thing. As mentioned above, no lives were lost due to the release of that material.
3
@Lester Khan, I'm not sure how we can know that for certain. But, whether any lives were lost in this particular case is not the point. Assange took downloaded private information and put it all online without any intervention or screening, which is not a responsible thing to do. I certainly would not want someone to do it with the things on my computer, and the government computers (in a sense) are my computers too. That is not to say that I have complete trust in my government, but someone needs to make a responsible decision what to share and what not to share. Assange did not do that.
@Lester
I consider the lives of children lost to inhumane immigration policies a direct result of this man opting to help put our current administration in power.
Michelle Goldberg asserts that “In the 2016 election, Assange acted as a conduit for Russian intelligence services that had hacked emails from top Democrats,” but this is an unproven allegation. Assange has long offered to provide proof that WikiLeaks did not get Democratic National Committee email from Russia or any other government agency in exchange for the same type of immunity afforded mainstream news media outlets when they published stolen or leaked documents
The Justice Department should take Assange up on his offer; otherwise, we will probably never know for certain who hacked Democratic email and delivered it to WikiLeaks. Since the hacking of Democratic National Committee email is the centerpiece of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, knowing its provenance would be worth offering Assange a reduced sentence on charges he conspired to break a Defense Department password, provided Assange’s evidence is convincing.
3
@William Case I could not agree more! The whole Mueller Report kerfuffle may have some legitimacy; nevertheless, the content of what the emails revealed-- regarding the Democratic Party's efforts in propping up Hillary and squelching Bernie--ought be acknowledged. It almost never comes up. Instead, what comes up is what the Russians did to steal the election from Hillary by leaking emails. Should not the American people know the part the Dems themselves played in this scenario?
2
It seems to me that too much emphasis is being placed on the "crimes" supposedly committed by Assange and Manning and too little emphasis on the war crimes committed by our government in Iraq which they exposed. The US intelligence community is clearly out to get them for revenge and as a warning to future whistle blowers.
4
I too find the Assange case a serious ,if only potential at this time, threat to the Free Press.
I am old enough and was an active opponent of the war in Vietnam and remember two episodes that helped the population at large realize that we has been lied to by our government about the war and we were illegally being spied upon by the FBI.
The Pentagon Papers were stolen and The NY Times bravely went to court to publish them. The files from an FBI office in Philadelphia were stolen and the Washington Post bravely published them.
The public benefitted greatly from seeing in print those stolen documents.
The only justification I can see for indicting and possibly convicting Assange would be proof that he indeed is not an independent journalist but a Russian agent.
I suspect that might well be true.
I appreciate Ms Goldberg's concern for a free press but question her characterization of Assange as "odious" given that her only apparent justification is a link a long rambling Intercept article which boils down to much he said/she said/they said. It really only shows a man who actually tries to analyze the world situation (rightly or wrongly.... we will see if Trump actually keeps us out of a war... we still have at least a year and half to go), maybe is a bit paranoid (who wouldn't be if you have been cooped up in a single building for such a long period of time), and willing to hold non-PC opinions and stand up to critics. He has done the world a great service. So far the case against him seems rather weak but the Trump DOJ is not above hounding him in any case (so much the sadder for our justice system).
3
We have a first amendment so that people can publish and learn things like those Assange published. The fact that it's embarassing to the government is exactly the point - those are the sorts of things that NEED protection from reprisal.
5
While I agree, there does have to be some line with respect to journalists engaging in crimes to obtain that information. The fact that the information is of public interest can’t excuse criminal acts.
The fact that Assange did some things that journalists do doesn't make him a journalist. Further, that his information went to a foreign power hostile to the interests of the United States who used that information to inflict harm to us adversely affects my opinion of him. He can rot in prison for all I care, but whatever happens to him will set a precedent that can, and most likely will, be misused in future.
1
Yes, hacking into governmental servers is and should be a crime. I would assume we, most of us anyway, will agree with that. However, it seems to me the far more dangerous, darker subtext here is an eroding trust in our government. I came of age in the fifties and sixties, and until Vietnam and Watergate trust in our government was endemic. Now, not so much. Nobody doubted what Cronkite told us, or ever thought that it was perhaps "fake news" intended to manipulate us. Now, just look at where we are today. God, can we ever get our country back? Probably not in my lifetime. What is a nation but for trust in our government, and in each other?
Savaging Assange is true and classic killing the messenger. These days Americans blithely engage in war crimes and call out other nations for the equivalent of littering. Anyone with the temerity to call out the true face of the US plutocracy's military-industrial complex driven foreign policy and its repercussions in human suffering thus cannot be tolerated. It was another world when Assange was hailed as a hero. It took some time, but yeoman efforts of US media channeling America's foreign policy establishment has rewritten that narrative. The American public now know this man they instinctually responded to as a hero working with Manning and others to reveal gross wrongdoing and abuse of power was no such thing. Why? Because he revealed what the powers that be do not want revealed. These same powers were thus relentless in seeking him out and reframing his story because they will not tolerate replications of his revelations. He must be punished to flag what will happen to others. Even more important the major media have lined up swearing fidelity to the concept that never again will such information be shared with the public. Loyalty above exposure of wrongdoing of the powerful is now the mantra of the media courtiers of our plutocracy and everyone eager to get back to watching "Game of Thrones," finding out what the latest hot restaurant or gallery show is and generally just not wanting to think too hard is cool with that.
8
"Assange seems to have thought that, by helping elect Trump, he would improve his own situation."
Where is the source for this?
An equally likely theory is that Assange suspected the DNC was concealing unethical behavior and when the supporting evidence materialized, he felt it imperative that our nation know the truth.
2
One could argue that Julian Assange did exactly what an investigative journalist does, report on issues which those in power or powerful positions try to hide from public. Regarding him aiding Russia via wikileaks, or help Trump win, those are shaky charges too. I bet Assange has his own issues, but I guess the biggest one is that his radical views of transparency are too much for a hypocritic body politics and society that we all live in and support. Or maybe that's our biggest issue.
10
Journalists who publish information obtained from a source are not liable if their source obtained the information by stealing it. However, if a journalist helps the source commit theft, as Asange is accused of doing, that is a diffferent matter.
1
@Edie Clark
I believe if you review the facts you will see that he did not "help" anyone steal anything. It's perfectly normal practice for a media outlet to engage with a whistle-blower and attempt to gain more information. By saying he "helped" you are revealing that you have not thoroughly reviewed the known facts to date. In fact, you are repeating the very mantra that our more mainstream media has been perpetuating ad nauseam since the beginning. This is a very slippery slope of misinformation.
1
Once again we have to remind everybody that the First Amendment is not there to protect the Press. The "Press" is a construct maintained by newspapers and other media outlets. There is no protected class of people called "Journalist".
The First Amendment protects everybody. We are all the "Press" in that sense. But it doesn't protect theft or espionage.
3
Just as the president of the United States is not above the law, neither is the free press. Freedom comes with responsibility. To be free, one needs to be responsible in discerning facts from fiction; otherwise, the "press" is no longer journalism but a public con, like Fox News.
More importantly, the value of such freedom has to be contingent upon a presumed adherence to the best interests of one's people and country specifically, and to the good of humanity generally. How is it the best interests of our country and humanity when WikiLeaks works with authoritarian like Putin, while leaving alone Putin's more corrupt secrets?
I still can't square the irony of Snowden hiding out in Putin's Russia.
3
@Doodle
Snowden is stuck in Russia because the US pulled his passport. He was on his way to Ecuador. But go ahead and keep repeating "Putin, Putin, Putin" and we'll be stuck with Trump for another term from which we, as a country, will likely not recover.
The charges against Assange will most likely include that he acted as an agent for the Russians to interfere with our election. The methods of obtaining government information with the aid of Guccifer 2, a Russian agent and using private Manning to complete his plan should make for a reasonable case for his crime. Not the reporting part of it. After all, when that information became public, many other journalists reported them too and will not be prosecuted for doing that.
The comments from Goldberg clearly indicated she does not understand Assange's indictment is NOT about "ordinary news gathering", it is steal, it is hacking, and this is criminal. If you don't have sympathy for Assange, please make sure he receives what he deserves.
6
There are two areas where the notion of free speech is very important: Politics and Religion.
These are matters of __opinion__. There are always cases where equally logical and intelligent men and women hold differing opinions on these topics.
Another important related area is the freedom of the press to report any and all facts accurately, and report editorial opinion (when identified as such). Freedom of the press allows publication of falsehoods. Fake News and Hoaxes. Publications lose reputation when those falsehoods are exposed as such by other publications of good repute. The only proper judge of press reports is the people who read them.
People outside the US are not entitled to the free speech benefits of our Constitution.
As long as Wikileaks only reported accurate information they, if they were in the US, would have the right to publish this accurate information no matter how obtained. Wikileaks is not entitled to our free speech protections even though no article they have published has been proven false. If Assange asked Manning to obtain classified information he may be prosecuted. Had he done the same thing while in the US he could not, in my opinion. No more than the investigators of Watergate who published their news.
Assange was doing the job that corporate media in the USA refused to do and he caught the government overstepping the law. Michelle Goldberg's article does little more than to keep the press under the thumb of the government. I'm sure glad the American revolutionary press in Boston wan't afraid to go after the King in violation of the law. It is the Press's responsibility to expose injustice.
13
The charge against Assange is the conspiracy to commit a computer crime, not for the dissemination of information.
4
"Now Assange has discovered, as so many others have before him, that betting on Trump can ruin your life."
Trump will do someone a favor---as long as he perceives that there is something in it for him. Everything is transactional to him. Everything.
1
Assange helped the Russians interfere in the 2016 election-resulting in Trump in the Oval Office. He sought personal revenge at the expense of the entire planet. Freedom of the press is not the issue in this case. Guilty as charged-lock him up!!
4
The indictment states that he actively engaged in espionage. He was a publisher, but he was also engaged in violations of US Code. He decided to cross the line, which was his choice. It is now the United States who decides to prosecute him as a publisher (they won't) or an infiltrator (spy), which he clearly was. He helped break in. I come from a time when the G. Gordon Liddy and the Oliver North types were rightfully thought of as traitors to Americans, even if one President or Party whitewashed it. Giving this guy a press pass is to weaken who you are before all of us who aren't.
1
Didn’t one of the Murdock clan conspire to hack phones as part of his tabloid business? Where is that indictment.
That indictment would have to be brought in England where the hacking took place and would be based on violations of English law. It was not a matter for American courts.
@Ben P The Murdoch hackings were taken to the courts by Jude Law, among others. He won a civil case after a tabloid bugged his phone and surveiled his home to get gossip on his private life. It was a gross violation of his rights as a private citizen, but not relevant to the issue of hacking
government servers under US law.
Assange, Snowden and Manning belong behind bar without any access to communication devices, period.
People who blindly follow headline principles like freedom, free speech and whistleblowing miss some glaring problems. They are all unrepentant egoists who are using grandeur sounding principles to draw attention. Manning got a second chance by hitting a pardon but she has never shown any gratitude. Snowden and Assange knew they were a tool by the darker forces like Putin but they chose to go ahead of their destruction anyway - just because they could.
Assange himself wants to play Master of the Universe by upending Mrs Clinton's campaign. Whether he colluded with the Trump Campaign is irrelevant. He is a foreigner aiming to disrupt America's election in the most sinister way. If there were anyone who should belong to Gitmo, he would be a prime candidate.
Snowden hiding in Russia is just irony supreme.
None of these people deserve leniency
1
No matter what we may think of Assange, we cannot forget two things. First, these charges are being brought by a DOJ run by a president who calls the legitimate press "the enemy of the people. "
If this prosecution succeeds, how long will it be before he orders his very compliant AG to apply it to the NYT or to the Washington Post, or to CNN. Would any of them publish the Meuller report now?
Second, this is another smokescreen to obscure the truly serious crime here. Russia successfully hacking a US election, and the extent of the Trump campaign's involvement in that crime. Even if it doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy, does anyone really believe, as does William (I fixed Iran-contra and the president can't commit obstruction) Barr does, that Trump and his minions didn't gleefully aid the Russians?
2
The old adage is that we're free to say what we like; but we're not free to yell FIRE! in a crowded theater.
It's one thing to report government corruption, bias, and over reach. It's quite another to illegally hack into government data banks, steal classified information, and then print it. Anyone who thinks that governments at multiple levels don't need to maintain secrecy over many matters is gullible and naive to how the world operates.
More and more journalists and media have proven that any notion of common sense, neutrality and wisdom has left them and so cannot be trusted to be the ones to make such far reaching decisions about government classified info that falls into their hands, that even outs our spies and gets them killed.
The threat to a Free Press is the irresponsible actions and motives and often downright dishonesty of the Press and journalists themselves. It is not a threat from the people who call you out for your lack of moral clarity or professionalism. You have failed us monumentally and may never again regain your stature as a protector of our freedoms.
1
A journalist? By what standard? Assange is just hiding behind the cloak of journalism. Let him live under the light of scrutiny like everyone else. He has proved that his release of info on the Democratic Party was self serving. Anything or anyone connected to the likes of Roger Stone is just a character in a Pieter Bruegel painting. He is just a tick on the underbelly of society. Oscar Wilde once said, “After a good dinner one can forgive anybody, even one's own relations.” However, not in this case.
I was at a law school event last night where the speaker suggested this could be tied up in the courts for year and eventually lead to a landmark decision like New York Times v. Sullivan. In his statement on the ACLU website, Ben Wizner said: "Criminally prosecuting a publisher for the publication of truthful information would be a first in American history, and unconstitutional." He then went on to make the quoted statement about the indicted not yet crossing a serious Rubicon. These are fascinating and scary times!
2
"But any legal theory that Trump’s Justice Department uses against Assange can also be used against the rest of us."
Come on guys. This administration can use any made-up theory of law or objective facts to prosecute or not prosecute any situation for strictly political reasons. For the media to hide behind the 1st amendment in the way presented in this article, shallow reasoned tripe, forgets the deranged and corrupt part of the media, ie Fox Noise. As long as there are a few democratic rich guys who own part of the media we, as a society, have some chance of democracy surviving a bit longer. Clearly, there will also be rich guys with corrupt political interests who own media and hide behind the 1st amendment.
Journalistic freedom does not even come into play in this case. This guy did incredibly more damage to our country than Julius and Ethel Rosenbug, and we executed them. Just remember the adage, we have the freedom to do what you want you want in a civil society as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. As law abiding citizens we have the freedom to eliminate those that are out to destroy us, and in this case, one has inflicted incredible damage in an era when trust is illusive.
1
He is gross. He is deranged. He is incredibly narcissistic.
The press just avoid him and not let him prey on them.
1
Interesting that as William Barr indicates that the fix is in on the Mueller report, Michael Avenatti and Julian Assange, two people who made Trump look bad, are getting prosecuted. Just like he cleaned out the top echelon at the FBI. And is currently purging the Department of Homeland Security.
That said, it really has been fun since this morning to watch those in the press who came up through the blogosphere squirming to find a way to join the chorus calling Assange despicable, while still trying to sing soprano in the choir that praises him as a saint. Making a living as a perfect opinion writing contemnor is pretty complex, so its lucky Assange got arrested for something Michelle Goldberg can #MeToo him on.
The whole thing would be a lot easier if you and everyone else had evaluated his leaks item by item. Then you wouldn't have trouble with the fact that the same guy who did the world a service leaking misdemeanors in Iraq also leaked diplomatic cables, Democratic Party emails, and identities of records of torture victims. Oh, and apparently wasn't above supplementing what he was leaked by asking the leaker to break the law again, and if he couldn't do it, helping him out.
Perhaps, Ms. Goldberg, you might find another distinction between Assange and a journalist -- a journalist would have printed transgressions of anyone. Mr. Assange only printed dirt on his enemies.
1
He embarrassed some very elite people.
4
On one hand if a person broke into a government computer and took classified material and published it we might call them a spy and put them in jail. In this case some are calling him a journalist so its ok. I think not.
1
Julian Assange's lawyer: "This precedent means that any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the United States for having published truthful information about the United States"
People are mad at the publisher/ journalist Assange for disclosing true information of criminal activity. Everything Wikileaks has published is true.
First Trump came for Joe Blow and this paper said nothing,
Then Trump came for Assange and this paper said nothing,
Then Trump came for the New York Times and they wondered where is the outrage
6
I would be fine with journalists facing prison time for leaking classified documents. It is an unforgivable and treasonous action.
Assange’s arrest is yet another cautionary tale about free press and about Trump burning everyone who got Trump where he is.
1
No one is 100% blameless. So if the gov't wants to go after a journalist it will sift through its massive trove of surveillance it is collecting in Utah and find something small that journalist did and prosecute him. Among the purposes of prosecuting Assange is to shut him up, torture him in jail with solitary confinement to get his sources and to intimidate every journalist even thinking about exposing our gov'ts latest misdeeds. That is why this column is so disingenuous. Some journalists who support the gov't and/or even promote it's lies see themselves above such retribution. You know what Niemoller said:
"They came for..."
5
On the One Hand but On the Other Hand
1
There are just no guarantees in this life.
Let’s separate 2 ideas. First, that Assange did something malicious to the US and ought to be prosecuted. Second, that the Trump administration is not the body you want making precedent or case law in matters like this. On the first, we should prosecute Assange to the full extent of the law else we have another chink in the armor of functioning government. Second, we should not rely on something as important as this to set a constitutional precedent. We need to write law to cover the new reality in an age of technology and hacking. This happens all the time. What’s different now is that we’ve had a generation of conservative expansion and relative progressive retrenchment in all things that govern daily life. So the solution is a long one, progressives have to work to take back the initiative. It started in last year’s election but it might take most of a generation to rebalance.
Prosecutor Joyce Vance, an MSNBC pundit who is adept (for me at least) in explaining legal/illegal situations, said this morning that if a journalist asks a source for information and the source freely gives it, there is no crime. If a journalist puts a gun to the head of the source and asks for the information, that is a crime. If a journalist hacks into a system and leads/encourages another to do so in the quest for information, that is a crime.
Assange, according to the indictment, encouraged/led Manning to break into a computer with someone else's password to steal information. That is a crime. And it would be a crime if you did it, also, Michelle.
I am so curious as to why Mr. "I love Wikileaks, I know nothing about Wikileaks" wanted Assange brought to the U.S. right now with the Mueller Report coming soon. One would think Trump would prefer him rotting away in the Ecuadorean embassy with his stinky cat and skateboard and no WIFI.
3
You can revile Assange for helping throw the election, just as you can hate Murdoch for doing likewise. But both organizations operate in the same way, part of our free press, gathering, compiling, collating news and info for distribution to the public. And as such, entitled to editorial bias, however abhorrent we may find it.
74
@Mr. B I wonder how Progressives would feel if Assange had helped HRC win the election? How would they feel if Assange acted as a conduit for Russian intelligence services that had hacked emails from top Republicans? Would they be lauding him as a Free Press hero? Of course they would. The Media is free to publish. But individuals are not equally free to procure classified information if they break laws. The Press can't be prosecuted for publishing but individuals may be prosecuted for the methods by which they procure information, not for making it public. Whether these acts where laws are broken are perpetrated by heroes or traitors is subjective. But the distinction between the act of theft of information & the act of publishing information is not open to interpretation. Assange obtained much information unethically. There's a lot of hypocritical hand wring & teeth gnashing about what's happening to Assange. I wonder how the NYT editorial board would feel if he published the personal emails of your staff. Would you think that's just fine and dandy? I doubt it. Amazing and revealing - that Assange and Snowden - self proclaimed purveyors of "free press and journalism" - end up either living under an authoritarian dictator or promoting the interest of one - where ALL information is controlled and no one dare speak out . . . and yet never a word of alarm or concern regarding the utter lack of "free press" in these countries - specifically Russia. Quite revealing indeed.
15
@Mr. B
I disagree. Assange, by giving his information to a foreign power hostile to our national interests, left the community of the free press and entered the world of espionage. Further, I believe the case has more than adequately been made that Fox News exists only to misinform and inflame. It is no more part of the free press than a wolf is a sheep.
33
My view of Assange changed forever when I discovered he wasn’t interested in publishing embarrassing hacked government documents about Russia’s misadventures in Ukraine.
Journalists are all about speaking truth to power no matter which government is abusing it. When you pick and choose who you wish to embarrass whatever you’re doing no longer really qualifies as journalism.
51
A ridiculous irrelevant strawman is presented here. Yes, there are a multitude of laws and some can catch innocent people unaware. Yes, we need to be mindful of that. But what possible relevance does that have to this situation? Does any intelligent person really believe that Assange and Manning did not think it was illegal to hack government computers? Really? Because that what this ridiculous proposition argues.
1
There is a big difference between Assange's actions with Manning to reveal secrets that need to be revealed and his actions working with the Trump campaign and Russia as an agent to interfere with our elections. The first needs to be handled as a technicality that needs to be clarified and perhaps not lead to an indictment. The second is a crime that undermines the very structure of our government and needs to be prosecuted vigorously. it's a strange twist that the First amendment freedom of the press is threatened as the Justice department goes after Assange for the first, but ignores his transgressions against our electoral process. But as trump seeks to find away to muzzle the press and absolve himself of wrong doing, this is what we face. Will outlets like the NYT need to defend some of Assange's actions as freedom of the press? Perhaps so, but defending such a disgusting misogynist and works behind the scenes as a Trump stooge is the height o irony.
"But any legal theory that Trump’s Justice Department uses against Assange can also be used against the rest of us."
This is an invalid extrapolation.Do you know any journalists who would be willing to help a source commit a serious crime? I really doubt it. Breaking into a US government top secret network is not a jaywalking offence. It's a serious felony. I appreciate that the US government is intent on any legal way to punish Assange. He could have avoided giving them a way to do that by not engaging in the criminal conspiracy.
We have laws that apply to everyone, whether a journalist or not. If, in the course of our work, we commit a crime, no matter what our work is, whether noble or mundane, we are still liable for our actions.
I would suggest that since it has been reported that the US is going to charge Assange with additional offenses before he is extradited, it's quite possible that they feel they have enough evidence to charge him with defrauding the US government by interfering with US elections. This is the same charge the GRU hackers were charged with. The identity of the DNC hackers, Russian Intelligence officers,was known in June 2016, Assange released the stolen files in July 2016. Assange is no dummy and he is a hacker. He would have known he was working with the GRU while working with them obtain the files. Add to that both his actions and words that he was conducting an operation to damage Clinton explicitly and you have an asset not a publisher.
Dangerous precedent or no, if Assange isn't held accountable for posting ill-gotten gains illegally extracted from private and public venues with the intention to do nothing more than embarrass, defame and manipulate, we can only expect much more of the same. We're seeing examples of how American "Free"dom has a flip-side to the coin.
Assange is a zealot and might be a political tool; he is not a journalist and should not be judged on those standards.
4
What makes Democracy "work" is honest Journalism. We have a two-edged Sword here. While I agree that hacking into ANYONE'S computer, let alone the CIA or NSA's, is a serious crime - that's one thing. Once that News hits the Press, and is released as valid News, that's another thing all together.
Before we had Social Media, before we had cellphones & computers, people would actually read a Newspaper. And you would REALLY read it; separating the wheat from the chaff, and looking for the real Truth in the Article, not just the fluff around it. Not just the "spin".
I thank Ms. Goldberg for this fine piece. Mr. Assange dug up some very ugly, yet very True facts. His actions in doing so were 100& corrupt. His Intentions were to expose serious Crime. Where does "Justice" draw the Line?
What concerns me less is Mr. Assange. What concerns me more is the Trump Administration; by putting puppets in places of National Power, all the way from Trump's appointed/ "our" new Interior Secretary, to "our" stacked deck in the entire Justice Department. American Democracy dies daily, while Trump slowly promotes, and solidifies, his Dictatorship.
Seven years, cooped up in a small Embassy, would be tough. Mr. Assange stuck his neck out, for his own political beliefs, to commit that crime. He should be punished for only that, and not made a greater scape-goat, nor an excuse by Trump, to thwart any further dissent ~ of phony Wars, and their Halliburton price-gouging.
I think that people have come to see Assange in a new light since 2010 when he was hailed as someone dedicated to acting as a publisher of state secrets that reveal wrong doing.
Since that time he has gradually been revealed as more of a very ideologically oriented operator rather than a neutral broker seeking to use the freedom of the press to expose injustice, corruption or state criminal activity.
It became evident that Assange had his own agenda and sought to use his position to further that agenda. Most of his agenda revolved around the "anti-imperialist" ideology. He left Russia, Syria and many other despotic regimes alone, but he delighted in doing anything that would cause damage to the US or other Western countries.
With his operation against Clinton using the GRU obtained files and very explicitly in word and deed making it clear that damaging Clinton was the goal of his operation he made his intentions clear. That coincidentally or not coincided with Russia's goals in conducting the active measures that included the hacking and Internet propaganda campaign.
So now we have someone who was using his position as a publisher to exploit the freedom of the press as a tool to conduct a targeted intelligence operation with the goal of damaging the campaign of a single candidate in the election.
This is a criminal intelligence operation, whether he was an asset of Russia or not.
So don't cry to me about poor little Julian. he knew exactly what he was doing.
3
This case is not a facial assault on the First Amendment, and Julian Assange is not the appropriate poster boy for a ringing defense of Freedom of the Press. On the other hand, Trump's insidious war on the media, remains an existential threat to a free press. The legitimate media's pursuit of truth, and its investigative powers, are a mortal threat to a president whose serial lying, policy incompetence, and institutional ignorance, have debauched the integrity of the Oval Office.
248
@Don Shipp.
I suspect that when dictators set out to destroy the free press, they don't start with the most beloved news sources - they start with the most reviled. Then, when the get tacit approval, they start working their way up.
13
@Don Shipp.
Couple things. 1- if it’s free press, why do I read the exact same take on Trump and the “ war on media” from all Democrats
1a) What is a war on media? One that discredits Fox News as “not news” ( is fake news different?) as Democrats and Obama mocking does?
1b) The DNC will have 12 primary debates. None on Fox - a major network. Free press? Or furthering the idea that Fox isn’t real?
What is a war? An attempt to marginalize?
The fact that the left is SURE Fox is not news, isn’t a good defense.
You guys been doing this for a long time. So much that you all believe it as fact.
2
@Don Shipp.
It is pretty amazing that you are too obtuse to see that this legal assault on Assange is PART OF TRUMP'S WAR ON THE MEDIA that you are rightfully concerned about.
If you think Trump is not using the Assange case to get his authoritarian foot in the press freedom door, you are at best delusional.
6
Even with the protection of the First Amendment, journalists cannot do anything they choose in the name of a "free press". Some actions DO threaten national security, lead to the injury or deaths of American citizens, or simply violate the law. If it's presently illegal to "hack" a government computer, then a journalist may use their power to challenge and change that law. In light of his actions and personal history, Julien Assange has shown himself to be a narcissistic and anarchic sociopath. Trump or no Trump, his case will be a singular one, judged on its merits under the law. As noted in the article, "These charges do not pose quite the threat to a free press that some feared, because hacking is not standard journalistic practice."
1
I'd argue that in the age of Trump - among other things - the slippery slope argument doesn't really play anymore. We're in trouble, all of us - and to get out of it we need to make some decisions based on immediate practicality, more than abstract concepts of idealism. We're obviously not mature enough to live on idealism; this isn't 1962. So, yeah - Assange is dragged out of his festering hole and made to face the music. Good. Get him off the front page and let's move on.
90
@James,
We can all agree that Assange is not deserving of much. But did you ever hear of precedence? Did you ever hear of Ernesto Miranda or Miranda rights? Ernesto was a very nasty character and deserved what he eventually got, but defending him in that one famous case has saved probably thousands of people from improper and illegal police enforcement.
10
@James Yes, who needs principles anyway? What a courageous stance you've taken!
2
@bill
Good comment, Bill - thanks.
1
"Ample evidence of Assange's anti semitism", writes Goldberg. There we go again, as so often my curiosity remains unsatisfied. In my mind, Assanges' relevance is concentrated in his ability to expose war crimes, lies and secrets our conventional press does not have acces to or does not want its acces revealed. I applaud all his efforts to attain that access,in spite of so many governments attempting to keep their ugliest dealings from view. As Snowden who proved NSA lying to all, difficult and headstrong people like Assange and Manning are a necessity for a more complete level of information. Gossiping about their personal weaknesses does not make this necessity go away.I understand Goldman sees this,fortunately.
1
The state can always come up with some charges against someone who uncovers the state's dirty secrets. The limits of free speech...
The question is if a democratic state has any right to have secrets.
3
I am more disconcerted by the form of things in the reasons for arresting Assange today than by any debate surrounding the justification of his actions which will be taken up by the courts.
The United Kingdom exposed itself as a cowardly toady of Washington, surrendering its sovereignty to a bully nation instead of respecting the rule of law. I surely hope that Macron and other indignant European leaders exploit this occasion today to enforce a hard Brexit upon Great Britain. The British people have just shown the world for whom their sympathies lie…. definitely NOT fellow European citizens !
4
Sorry, Assange crossed the line when he allowed Wikileaks to become a conduit for politically motivated publication of hacked emails containing personal information about individuals, gossip, and campaign strategy. Even Snowden was critical of Assange at the time for making not the slightest effort to curate any of the hacked emails . To the degree that the press participates in publishing stolen private (hacked) information it should face consequences unless that information is of legitimate public concern, not just lurid curiosity. This applies to hacks against anyone, not just those against political figures. People are entitled to personal and business privacy even if they say stupid or inflammatory things; especially then.
Yes, we must be very careful of eroding press freedom. You are right about that. All the more reason for the press to be careful of what they publish.
2
But didn't Assange solicit government secrets for publication? And is that really the same thing that journalists working for NYT and other respected newspapers do? I hope not. To me, supporting Assange feeds into this idea that government is the enemy, which is the province of both the far-right and far-left fringe. In my opinion, there have to be some limits, and from my point of view arresting Assange is a good thing.
112
@David
What happens when the government IS the enemy?
Has that time arrived?
4
@David but what if soliciting “government secrets” — which ultimately belong to all of us — exposes the myriad misdeeds and worse that have become biz as usual under a succession of administrations? I don’t believe “government is the enemy,” but an unaccountable government certainly is.
5
@David
What do you think Trump's government is? A friend ?
5
No, it's not. Assange did a disservice to free press when he decided to hide like a rat instead of facing his accusers in Sweden, simply because he was afraid of being sent off to the US on the Manning/Iraq/Wikileaks affair.
There would have been, then, worldwide protests in case he had been charged, and support for Wikileaks would have been enormous. Today, few will remember or know or care about what the fuss was about when he decided to importune the Ecuadorians.
His arrest may give some puff to the many dictators around, but dictatorships come and go. Even in these circumstances, there are always brave journalists that get their stories out. I witnessed that, growing up under a fascist government.
40
@Silvia. Assange isn't a brave journalist. Stop treating him like one.
5
The irony of Julian Assange, an accused sexual abuser, being tried (not for sexual abuse, though) by the Justice Department of an Executive Branch headed by an accused sexual abuser, Trump, shouldn't be lost on anybody.
"What goes around, comes around" as the saying goes.
1
"What’s troubling, however, is that his indictment treats ordinary news gathering processes as elements of a criminal conspiracy."
==============
I support the broadest Constitutional protection of the Freedom of Speech and Press.
However, the notion that hacking a computer to obtain and expose classified information while at the same time placing lives at risk would be protected by the First Amendment were it "an ordinary news gathering process" is spurious.
The Constitution contains no such provision, nor has The Supreme Court even intimated that the First Amendment gives the Press license to violate the law in the course of its news gathering operations.
If the evidence establishes that Assange and Manning conspired to hack government computers, [a crime which requires proof of an act by either in furtherance of the conspiracy] they should held to account.
3
Michelle noted *explicitly* that hacking computers is not part of journalistic methods, and points out that the specifics in the indictment included as part of the "conspiracy" many practices that *are* normal and accepted, such as providing a secure method of transferring information. It seems as though you are lumping in all of these activities with the illegal act of hacking.
Deliberate or not, you are supporting the false view the government wants us to accept that publishing leaked information is a crime, to intimidate journalists everywhere.
I wonder how Goldberg & Progressives would feel if Assange had helped HRC win the election? How would they feel if Assange acted as a conduit for Russian intelligence services that had hacked emails from top Republicans? Would they be lauding him as a Free Press hero? Of course they would. The Media is free to publish. But individuals are not equally free to procure classified information if they break laws. The Press can't be prosecuted for publishing but individuals may be prosecuted for the methods by which they procure information, not for making it public. Whether these acts where laws are broken are perpetrated by heroes or traitors is subjective. But the distinction between the act of theft of information & the act of publishing information is not open to interpretation. Assange obtained much information unethically. There's a lot of hypocritical hand wring & teeth gnashing about what's happening to Assange. I wonder how the NYT editorial board would feel if he published the personal emails of your staff. Would you think that's just fine and dandy? I doubt it. Amazing and revealing - that Assange and Snowden - self proclaimed purveyors of "free press and journalism" - end up either living under an authoritarian dictator or promoting the interest of one - where ALL information is controlled and no one dare speak out . . . and yet never a word of alarm or concern regarding the utter lack of "free press" in these countries - specifically Russia. Quite revealing indeed.
2
Given that the mainstream media is less partisan than the government news agency, (excuse me, Fox "News") I expect that they would report and editorialize the same if Assange had helped Democrats.
I hope you understand that the point here is not partisan advantage, but an attempt to intimidate all journalists who hold those in power to account.
You judge Assange before he is tried.
What we have are claims of alleged actions by the purported victims and the prosecutors.
Aren't you "listening to one side of the case", which is a good way for a writer to end up looking like a fool. Like those many journalists who accepted the Russiagate story.
His guilt is not "something we all know". You list charges: sexual assault; spreading Russian-hacked information; spreading a conspiracy theory; misogyny and antisemitism.
None of these is a basis for judging him.
1) The sexual assault claim is suspect because the claimants remained around the man who allegedly committed one of the most serious of felonies against them.
2) He says he did not know whence came the allegedly Russian-hacked information. We don't know if this is true. That's why we have trials.
3) To spread a conspiracy theory is not a crime. All of us millions who have doubts about the JFK assassination are said by many to be conspiracy theorists. This paper so described us around 22 November 2018. No fed has yet come for me.
4) It is not a crime to hold misogynous and antisemitic beliefs.
Crime or not, none has been proven. Unless there is more, you don't know that he is odious.
You say he deserves his fate. We all have, I think, a sense that his fate will be dark, indeed. That's a pretty grim outcome to wish on a person who is possibly innocent.
As in #MeToo and Russiagate, what's the hurry? Why the passion for scuttling due process?
2
@alyosha -- If Assange follows the pattern he's long established, he's got a few surprises in store that will deeply embarrass those so against him now. It is what he does. He's had a long time to think about this, and to get ready. You think he just wasted all that time?
2
@alyosha
Did Chelsea Manning deserve her 35 year sentence? Considering what she did, 35 years reveals our vindictive system's dark side. History will praise Obama for sensibly commuting her sentence before leaving office.
Why are Pentagon secrets sacred. How much misery, bloodshed, imperial arrogance, cold calculated plans, cover ups are inside those computers. Why should they remain secret.
104
Why are Russia and China's secrets sacred? Because WikiLeaks sure hasn't published anything from either of those two reprobate governments.
19
@Robert Roth - There was a lot more in the WikiLeaks cable dump than military information.
Assange, with help from Manning, helped despots around the world suppress human rights. Because WikiLeaks made no attempt to sort or redact the mass dump of cable traffic Manning collected, countries from China to Guatemala, and Russia to Zimbabwe were able to learn exactly which of their citizens had been trying to work with pro-democracy and pro-human rights organizations, which had passed on information about government corruption or ties to terrorism, and which quietly opposed the despots. Countless reporters, human rights activists, and ordinary people were fired, jailed or simply "disappeared" due to WikiLeaks. What about their rights? What about their privacy? Everyone who lost a job, was arrested or had a loved one "disappear" due to WikiLeaks should have the right to sue Assange in civil court for the incalculable damage he did.
18
@Robert Roth, So Trump's tax returns should be fair game, right?
Journalists don't commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes.
6
Hacking is illegal. Stealing confidential information is illegal.
Reporting is not.
4
First off, Assange was not a journalist.
Secondly, the free press here doesn't conspire with Russian intelligence agents.
Now Sean Hannity was routinely communicating with Assange so go figure.
1
Publishing any documents that have been classified secret for national security reasons should be a prosecutable offence. A group of sanctimonious editors and reporters have no idea of the potential harm that can be caused by thinking they know better than security professionals.
2
Allowing governments to secretly manipulate elections, prosecute illegal wars, and erode our rights one baby step at a time is far greater peril than publishing "secrets" that would reveal these crimes. If we accepted the prosecution you espouse, the U.S. would soon resemble Russia or Egypt in its lack of independent reporting.
"First they came for the journalists. We don't know what happened after that."
1
Julian Assange is the very symbol of the death of ethical, principled journalism. He is not remotely like, for example, editors at the NYT, WSJ or even the Guardian.
What he did was not in any way like the leak of the Pentagon Papers, for example. He encouraged, if not conspired with, Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, a member of the U.S. military, in the wholesale theft of a gargantuan amount of sensitive, confidential information from our country. He made no attempt to determine the potential implications of the stolen information before he released it. He did not care if he was putting innocent lives at risk. Instead, his intent was to inflict as much damage as possible on the United States. In later years, he selectively released stolen information with a timing that showed he clearly intended to influence the 2016 presidential campaign—for example, the John Podesta emails. There seems to be evidence that he was in communication with members of the Trump campaign, such as Roger Stone, during the election in connection with the timing of information release.
He is not a journalist as much as he is an anarchist hacker with an agenda. He should be dealt with as such.
7
Julian is undoubtedly a flawed individual but that is irrelevant to what he accomplished. He exposed to the American people a deeply ugly side of their society. Similary for Snowden and Manning. They have all paid a price for it but people should be grateful to them. The U.S. is not a widely admired country in the world and certainly the revelations made by these three helped in that but only a bit. If the people of the U.S. care about that perception maybe they should do something about it and start by thanking Julian.
73
@ME
Don't compare Snowden to Assange and leave Manning out of it. Assange's larger crime, in my view, is not actually reviewing the information at all. He had no idea what he was dumping and, by extension, the immediate damage it could do to real people.
That's the real difference here. Snowden released only what he felt needed to be released for the good of the public. Assange is just seeking attention. There's no basic decency there. Don't believe me? Look at what he did to Manning; preying on a confused, depressed individual to expose secrets of, again, something? Maybe? We're lucky Manning didn't end up killing herself after Assange. What a creep.
And why should the files remain secret? Why should any! Least of all yours and mine? Maybe a spy to alert us if North Korea sends a nuke our way? Yeah. Let's leave those names out of it. Diplomatic cables about dictators? Not all secrets are bad. Sometimes it's incredibly necessary. The cables aren't hyperbole either. Diplomats desperately needed were expelled.
But, yes, let's thank Julian. He's such a stand up guy. Making the world safe for democracy, one computer at a time. Maybe. He's not sure. One of these must though. Those personal DNC emails? Well, it didn't either. One day! (Maybe?)
10
@ME None of the aforementioned deserve any thanks. The journalistic pap "need to know" is applied to everything from Kim Kardashian's sexual habits to U.S. state/defense information that, in the hands of our enemies, places military and state department personnel in grave danger. Assange participated in a election coup. He's no journalist.
18
@ME
But fortunately Congress passed a law 25 years ago prohibiting something Assange did, and that law has nothing to do with journalism. Read it for yourself: U.S. Code Tile 18 Section 1030.
4
Goldberg tries to sound liberal here, but her conclusion boils down to the same one reached by the US government: Julian Assange deserves to rot in prison (or the Ecuadorian Embassy) because she disagrees with his politics. Ironic that she then tries to call him a "handmaiden to authoritarianism."
3
NO!
If he’s a journalist, I’m George Washington.
4
Unreviewed, unedited, and unredacted dumps of huge troves of data is not journalism. The 1st Amendment and real journalists have nothing to fear from a prosecution of Assange on a hacking charge.
205
@Tom Hollyer
Exactly. When the Times and the Post choose to publish documents protected by forms of secrecy, they do so in a context after months of investigation and after a group of people imbued with journalistic ethics have weighed the pros and cons.
A document dump is not journalism. It is not reporting.
25
@Tom Hollyer
I agree, how in the world can a dump of data be considered journalism? If I dumped all my email history in the NYT dropbox would that be journalism?
13
@Tom Hollyer as a member of the Middle American mainstream media, I disagree. “Real journalists” is precisely the ad hoc standard invoked by officeholders who refuse to talk to reporters they declare other than “real.” Meaning, the reporters who ask the impertinent — and essential — questions. ...Who reveal embarrassing secrets. And it’s not just in fractured democracies around the world but also in our own. By that measure, I view Assange as a real journalist for all his warts. I’d remind you our own president has gone on the record repeatedly disputing the legitimacy of many journalists who happen to displease him with their coverage. CNN and the NYT come to mind.
4
We can't have it both ways - someone broke into the DNC, no not Watergate but the files & emails related to HRC & 2016. Breaking & entering whether it is files or offices should be against the law.... but publishing & news reporting is a whole new & hopefully protected issue.
Just like Mr. Trump ranted & encouraged Wiki Leaks & the apparent breaking & entering of DNC files.... now same Mr. Trump as president has big foot in mouth... but we've grown used to that.
He is a confirmed hacker and that alone, in my opinion, should put him in jail for an extended term. Add to that conspiring to defraud the United States by working with the Russians to successfully tilt an election towards his preferred candidate should get him life in prison without the possibility of parole. Assange is an Australian anarchist, not The New York Times.
4
This is beyond absurd. To discuss things with Assange, until 2 weeks ago was treasonous. To discuss things with a NY Times journalist was patriotic. Now this administration charges him, and guess what? Assange is now just a simple journalist - I mean, I simply can't keep up with the Times' and their readers' principles. Oh- actually, I think I can. If Trump did it, they can find what's wrong with it. Julian Assange in 1 day went from villian to a guy they should leave alone.
1
The only reason anyone knows what Assange published in Wikileaks is because mainstream media outlets like the NYT's, MSNBC, NBC, etc., republished the same information. All of the information turned out to be truthful information and that is why it was published.
The sole charge relates to Manning's revelation of US war crimes in Iraq in 2010. The video, which this column does not reference or link to, shows US troops killing innocent civilians in a "double tap" operation. Google "double tap" if you don't know what that means.
We learned about the Pentagon Papers because they were stolen. Does anyone think it would be better not to know about the lies of Vietnam? Should Ellsberg have gone to jail for revealing the truth? Shouldn't we be more concerned that our Government lies to us than how the information was obtained?
Manning revealed war crimes and went to jail. The perpetrators went free. Snowden revealed Clapper lied to Congress about the NSA spying on Americans. Snowden is exiled in Russia. Clapper received a promotion.
Democracy dies in ignorance while tyranny thrives in secrecy and lies.
5
Thank you Michelle for your notation that for "...actions to become part of a conspiracy, there has to be a crime". That thought has not previously dawned on you as regards Donald Trump and/or his presidential campaign. Perhaps you and the rest of the resistance think there is a Trump exception to the general rule.
As for Assange, whose utter terror at the thought of spending time in prison has been well documented, one can only wonder how many people --including "journalists" ?-- are panicking today at what Assange is likely to reveal to prosecutors about their conduct in order to buy himself one less day behind bars.
You claim that "by helping Trump become president, [Assange] became a handmaiden to authoritarianism."
How come it's Trump who's persecuting someone you all call Putin's agent when Putin is calling for Assange to be freed?
1
@Michael Munk. Because, as the article then points out, betting on Mr. Trump to be consistent is whistling past the graveyard. Although President Trump demands loyalty, he displays none, and someone way smarter than he, but in his Administration, has found a way to use Assange as a weapon against the free press. And as for all the comments saying that Assange is not a journalist, fine... Try telling that to the conservative judge who is pushing the Conservative agenda!
1
I'm sorry, but Assange is not now and has never been a journalist. He's merely a selfish publicity seeker who has been more involved in illegal activities than anything else. He's not a publisher of any sort, just a purveyor of illegally obtained data. Please do not dignify this crook by allowing anyone to label him a journalist.
4
Assange is not "the press", or a journalist. He is a disseminator of hacked and stolen material which he released with no editorial or higher purpose other than to disrupt or embarrass, though he is not above misleading the public by characterizing the content he releases as significant or scandalous when in fact, they have been at worst, embarrassing. In that regard, he has much more in common with Infowars that Ellsberg.
189
@RD Why is the motive relevant? Reporters do not work for free: they are employed by often very large media companies with their own agenda.
2
@RD
WikiLeaks awards.
The Amnesty New Media Award (2009)
TIME Magazine Person of the Year, People's Choice (highest global vote) (2010)
The Sam Adams Award for Integrity (2010)
The National Union of Journalists Journalist of the Year (Hrafnsson) (2011)
The Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (2011)
The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011)
The Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (2011)
The Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011)
The Voltaire Award for Free Speech (2011)
The International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011)
The Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011)
The Privacy International Hero of Privacy (2012)
The Global Exchange Human Rights People's Choice Award (2013)
The Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts (2013)
The Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013)
The Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014)
7
@RD
I agree!!!
2
I am a journalist and worked in the profession for over 20 years. I don’t support publishing government secrets that endanger the lives of federal agents who perhaps have already risked their lives coming up with plans to catch terrorists or foil their schemes.
As usual, Americans want to have it both ways. They cry foul that First Amendmend rights are violated and whine louder when government agents fail in some mission because their work was leaked to the press.
What makes no sense is the surprising number of Americans who purport to hate the government are thrilled that Assange leaked documents that hurt Democrats but support a regime that breaks the law and refuses to allow a government agency to comply with the law by turning over documents (the regime’s dictator’s tax returns) to the legislature.
4
The article states that “…hacking is not standard journalistic practice”, but also states that “…his indictment treats ordinary news gathering processes as elements of a criminal conspiracy.” How am I to resolve these seemingly contradictory statements? The indictment seems pretty limited and clear – it pertains to directly assisting a person to hack military secrets, NOT for publishing them.
Thanks to Michelle for a thoughtful opinion piece.
There is an interesting discussion in the comments before mine. But I would suggest the definition of some words is quite different for many people - simply based on the point they want to make.
Is "leaking" classified "truth" .... journalism?
Is hacking for "truth" admirable?
Is "truth" pure and without bias?
Whose "truth" should be exposed when it is classified?
If the pursuit of truth is a journalistic goal, at what point may a government "classify" that information to protect those that work to protect us?
If Manning is a hero to some, why is she a traitor to others? I am getting a Bonnie and Clyde feeling here. The "people" loved them and assisted them. Yet B&C slaughtered those that protected those same admirers.
I think the comment that has struck me as most important so far is the one that attempts to distinguish between reporting and writing articles. What is a piece that poses as reporting the "truth" that is riddled with opinons, even if subtle in nature?
What IS journalism today? Shouldn't we decide what information must be legitimately "classified" first?
And then we have to resurrect that irritating but critical discussion of how we identify opinion hidden within so called reporting.
"Journalists “get prosecuted for pretty mundane stuff, some of which they probably did, but they wouldn’t have been charged for if they didn’t make the regime unhappy.”"
The above line is the most important in today's column. That's because following the law in the Trump administration has become highly selective.
Things that would immediately impeach a Democratic president are routinely committed by this one. Plus, he now has an an AG totally in his pocket--does anyone really think the DOJ will charge any member of the administration for, say, refusing follow the law on turning over presidential taxes to Rep. Neal?
Because Trump, and now acolyte Barr, can twist logic to expand the meaning of words, I agree with Michelle: at some point, maybe sooner than we feared, we're going to see a DOJ leap from determining "publishers" have gone too far in procuring information to prosecuting them for publishing articles not to their liking.
This is Authoritarianism 101, and it's coming sooner than we think.
14
It seems pretty darn clear that there is an iron-clad line between publishing materials that have been obtained illegally, and aiding and abetting illegal acquisition.
Assange is charged with providing Manning with tools to illegally break in to confidential data stores, not with publishing the contents.
To make it very, very simple: You can report on a fire set by an arsonist, but you can't help the arsonist set the fire.
I see no "freedom of the press" issue here. Mr. Assange, under the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling is free to publish anything he obtains. He is NOT free to obtain it by illegal means.
To be more specific, under the PP ruling, it is an exception to the law against receiving stolen goods, as long as one doesn't aid in stealing them. That is precisely the line Assange is accused of crossing. If he is found guilty, he deserves the full penalty of the law.
Mr. Assange may well also be charged as a foreign agent, actively working to interfere with our elections, as are the multiple Russian operatives out of reach of our justice.
He is no hero. He only attacks Western-type democracies, not the brutal, repressive dictatorships that sponsor him.
5
Responsible journalists don't publish governments secrets unless there is a compelling reason to do so such as to expose criminal activity. We know that journalist can be forced to reveal sources, the privilege to withhold doesn't exist. They just are never prosecuted for it. Who said Assange is a journalist? And what is the standard for one to be considered a journalist or a journalistic publication? Though journalists are rarely ever prosecuted there should be an ethical standard which is not always the case with even the most reputable publications or media outlets.
1
Thank you for your comment. I too am confused by the idea of lumping Assange in with journalists. Even when he doesn't break the law to obtain information, he actively solicits government secrets, not for the purpose of any kind of serious reporting, but simply to stick his thumb in the eye of any government he can. I don't see why prosecuting him for these actions would be a threat to serious journalism.
2
Defining a journalist is difficult. Anyone with an almanac can tell you exactly when sunrise or sunset will occur but defining a journalist is equivalent to declaring the time of first light when we transition from darkness to zodiacal light before sunrise.
It's also dangerous to declare those who publish government secrets as enemies of the state particularly if those secrets disparage the current government and share information of value to a public in its support of that government.
The Times and the Post have long experience with these issues in and out of court. We need only look at the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg for an historic object lesson.
The First Amendment is first for a reason. Without a population free to associate, free to practice any religion (or none at all), free to seek redress and free to communicate, they become as important and as valued to a functioning commonweal as a single bacterium in our intestinal tract.
I support the quote describing the opinion of Voltaire on freedom of the press: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And that must sadly include Assange.
5
@Douglas McNeill
But fortunately Congress passed a law 25 years ago prohibiting something Assange did, and that law has nothing to do with journalism. Read it for yourself: U.S. Code Tile 18 Section 1030.
Freedom of the press is important, but it doesn't override every other issue in every single case. Mr. Assange deserves to be be put on trial. My fear is he will turn it—like everything else—into a media circus, and cause still further damage.
3
We once believed that journalists lived on a higher plane, living a life of integrity, seeking to find truth.This may have been generally true prior to the introduction of the mass medias. Print media is bound to adhere to law and social norms, and this takes time. How does mass media differ? In an instant. Examine the Comey assertion that Clinton had done "nothing wrong". His facial expression said something different, and most people remember this, not her innocence. So what was true, what was the "news"? Is Assange guilty of falsely yelling "fire" according to the strictest interpretation of the law? Were these documents vetted according to normal journalistic standards? Did Assange read each and every document prior to release? The effects were instantaneous. The leak became the story, not the content of the "leak". How was this "leak" then used by the slightly less than free television news media outlets, like Fox, to influence voters? Wikileaks was propaganda. So, in the media age, how do we define real news? If Trump says something either untrue, or out of context, but legitimate news repeats his assertions, playing a "tape", sans disclaimer, is that really news, or just propaganda, too? The lines of truth have been blurred. It all comes back to integrity, and even storied newspapers can do better. Wikileaks, we now know, was not about a free press, and that is the threat.
7
The test of First Amendment protections for Assange will be ironed out in Federal courts through various pre-trial proceedings which ordinarily will be open to public scrutiny. Included should be queries as to motivation: truth-seeking or revenge? There is a world of difference between these.
The Constitutional protections for journalists are no more sacrosanct than those protected rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and rights to trial by jury. There is an underlying measure of reasonableness, however and it is rather fascinating to think about the implications.
Woodward and Bernstein worked with a proven, reliable source. To my knowledge, they didn't steal anything. Ellsberg went a little further. Publishing became an act of patriotism, but sourcing had consequences which are still debated.
Heaven only knows what will happen to Assange here. The Justice Department we once knew has changed and boundaries once honored are no longer there. If he has access to some largesse, some good Constitutional lawyers might prove invaluable.
Let the truth come out. Hide nothing.
4
Assange is not a journalist. He wields information like a weapon, not a tool. Releasing private documents, like hacked emails, is not journalism. There was no public interest or need to know much of the information he released. A lot of the information he made public was for shock value and personal gain. Save your sympathy for someone more deserving.
9
@Dee S If there is no public interest in the information, why did the NYT's and every other media outlet publish it? What about the information revealed by Manning of US war crimes in Iraq? Should government lies never be revealed because the government does not want us to know what it is doing in our name? The issue is more complicated than you suggest.
So the notion is that a criminal who, in a sinister fashion and with benign intent, carefully threads the needle of legality, can and should be free to ply his trade?
I don't think so.
Sadly, however, there are politicians, judges and now, a president, who would be more than happy to curtail freedom of the press to suit their immediate political needs and biases while sacrificing the long-term integrity of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights written into the First Amendment.
Assange's misdeeds should not be confused with patriotism, his calculated wrong-doing should not be confused with legitimate journalism, and the Constitution should not be abused by curtailing freedom of the press.
We should be smart enough to know the difference, and our government should be careful enough to make a case that sticks without depriving us of the fundamental value and guarantee of a free press that is central to the American way of life. After all, it's one of the principles that our military heroes throughout history have fought and died for, and we owe it to their sacrifice and service to make sure that they did not serve or die in vain.
7
Reality, especially in the legal realm requires good, prudent judgement. It is also true in journalism. Freedom of the press, as all freedoms, comes with a requirement for responsible investigation and reporting. It appears that the Justice Department is doing the job of utilizing good and prudent judgement. This essay attempts to do the same. My view is that when freedom of the press is invoked as a core element of democracy that a corollary comment be added about responsible, prudent and good judgement being essential to the exercise of that freedom.
7
He will be tried if he is extradited in an open US court. This is not comparable at all to journalistic suppression in other countries. In fact, it could be a great example of how the USA is different from other regimes. Contrast with the Kashogghi murder. The first amendment and due process still stand in the USA.
3
It is nice to parse the oh-so-fine details and wring one's oh-so-clean civil-libertarian hands. But the truth is still, this is a dedicated enemy of our country, an bringing him to court is still a measure of--however belated--justice. TG
4
Whatever charges are against Assange, he has already paid the price for his alleged wrong doing. Assange did the work of a true journalist. He should be tried so that we all know what exactly he is charged for and he should be sentenced to freedom for life. Can anyone imagine the 2016 elections without knowing the dirty secrets of the democratic national committee that led to the prompt resignation of its top brass. It was not Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who revealed the truth that was not denied by the DNC that there was a serious attempt to knife Bernie and discredit him because of his religion. How appalling for a party that engages in identity politics to behind the scene try to favor one presidential candidate over the other.
Is Assange's arrest a threat to the free press? It seems that way but on the other hand I would like to find out what exactly is criminal about what he hacked and revealed to the world and How much of the secrets governments and politicians should be allowed to keep from the people who elect them. Arrests don't always end up harming a person. In fact it could protect a person from an irrational mob. Imagine journalist Khashogi being arrested at the Saudi Embassy in Turkey instead of being chopped to pieces. Imagine Gandhi and Mandela never being imprisoned for their civil disobedience and nonviolent noncooperation. It may not have accomplished the same level of success of freedom from colonial rule or unshackling a nation from apartheid.
2
@Girish Kotwal Interesting that you focus on the alleged DNC actions against Bernie (because of his religion?) as the biggest issue surrounding the 2016 election. There was also the small matter of a foreign country successfully disrupting the election. "Can anyone imagine the 2016 elections without knowing" that THAT happened? Trump ignored and/or denied it just as you do. And now it's emerging that sowing discord between the Hillary and Bernie factions of the party was part of the goal of the Russian invasion. We have not yet learned all there is to be learned.
7
@Girish Kotwal "Whatever charges are against Assange, he has already paid the price..."
Oh yeah? Tell that to the woman he (allegedly) raped. I say "allegedly" because he has a right to due process and has not yet had his day in court. Now perhaps he will face the process he has tried to hard to avoid, and (if found guilty) will at last pay the price.
2
@Mitch4949 from Westchester, I presume NY. I agree we need clarity and therefore I quite satisfied that he has his day in court so that we can find out what exactly he did wrong. As far as the hacking into classified intelligence information leaked by Wikileaks it was done by Chelsea Manning formerly Bradley Manning pardoned by Obama. America should thank Assange for exposing the lack of intelligence of our own intelligence.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6025377667001/#sp=show-clips
1
The article does not make it clear when the sealed indictment was actually made, so without that it is kind of impossible to infer intent, since we don't exactly who owned the charge. If it was Mueller, then the charge would be obvious, but if it was Obama or Trump, we would only have to guess in the first instance the intent, and in the second instance we could fear the worst.
In a fascist state, journalists have to fear a lot of things, and this charge might be the beginning of the worst that is yet to come. I believe firmly in a free press, but I don't agree that everything they come across should be published, especially when it hurts innocent people, like printing the forward movement in a military action, as someone pointed as having happened as a result of this Wikileak effort. I'm sure, and I have heard many times, that the American Press exercises some restrictions in those cases, which is good, in my judgement. Not to do so would be an abuse of free speech from a moral point of view, if no other, but the sheer volume of some of these documents can obscure things like that and the damage is done. It seems risky to print everything without evaluating it, and Wikileaks does not apparently evaluate anything.
To be involved in a criminal conspiracy does not mean that one has to succeed, and it is certain that stealing records is a criminal act, and if it was the password that the two people conspired about in an effort to obtain the information that is a crime.
8
Yes, Assange is in many ways an odious individual. However, it's hard to escape the feeling that he is likely to be prosecuted for two simple reasons: the British government will do almost anything the US asks of them; he has embarrassed the US, and its military in particular, in being caught out doing they things they ought not to be doing.
2
@David McQuade Hopefullly he will also prosecuted for a third simple reason. He has been accused of rape. Sweden should have first claim on him. If the UK has the moral authority it once had, it will extradite him to Sweden, not the US.
3
Yes. Things that are done in the course of actual journalism that were included in the indictment. That does not, in itself constitute a threat to journalism. if you and I drove to a coffee shop to do a drug deal, it would not be a threat to everyone who meets at coffee shops.
8
Whether publication of documents is a threat or a nuisance or amounts to criminal behaviour is to be decided on a case to case basis.
That will not amount to a threat against free press.
But what amounts to a threat against Human Rights are secret or sealed indictments.
Any person charged should know about these charges immediately and not being held in some kind of place between knowing they are safe and having to assume that some kind of government accusations will send them to jail for reasons unkown.
Not knowing about these secret charges means they cannot prepare for their defence if required.
This is the kind of government behaviour that damages human rights and the right of fair trial.
Some kind of Kafkaeske situation of a secret trial without the defendat even knowing he is to stand in court.
Sorry, but this is the behaviour of a 3. Reich or a Communist style tribunal and has nothing to do with 21. century legal standards
For this alone the US should be put under sanctions until they clean up their legal system to comply with basic human rights.
This kind of sealed indictments is way more damaging than to any society than even unfair trials for reasons of a president being on the verge of being found out for corruption.
This kind of sealed indictments can be used to hold everyone a hostage.
9
@Thomas
Sealing an indictment does not foreclose any right whatsoever of a defendant in the United States.
Assange was not "held in some kind of place" by the United States.
A sealed indictment does not lead to a "secret trial" in the United States.
The accused always knows the accusations in the United States.
Nobody in the United States goes to jail "for reasons unknown".
A defendants is entitled to "stand in court" during his trial in the United States.
Perhaps someone has a fantastic illusion that a sealed indictment never gets unsealed.
Please bone up on the United States legal system. It is not beyond criticism but deserves a defense against mindless disparagement.
1
In no world should hacking be considered legitimate investigative journalism. Without a court order, hacking is a crime. Criminal behavior does not become decriminalized just because the perp is a journalist.
While legal, I’ve also never been comfortable with journalists publishing stories based on sources they refuse identify. I get that some sources need to be protected. But if the source can’t be identified, either find other evidence backing up the story that can be identified or don’t publish it. It seems wrong to run a story based wholly on unidentified sources - and doubly so if the subject of the story is someone who fits into a political narrative the journalist wants to tell. That’s the time to be extra vigilant against jumping to conclusions.
5
@Steven Roth Assange hacked nothing. He did receive information transferred to a data stick or disc at the very computer containing the information. The accusation of hacking has been disproved. Regrettably the disproof is rather technical. I, myself, understand the disproof since I have a degree in computer science.
1
And yet, on these very same pages, the NYT decries the anonymity of social media.
This is well thought through, and I get Goldberg's point about the dangers to free speech that prosecuting Assange represents. Still, surely there is a pretty thick line between the wholesale dumping of classified info into the public domain without regard for consequences and the kind of approach that reputable journalists take, which is to consider whether there is a legitimate "whistle-blower" case to be made in the public interest. Surely our system can handle that kind of distinction without becoming a totalitarian suppressor of free speech. However, these days, I acknowledge that you can't be too careful.
22
For me it is very clear. He is not a journalist. Exposing someone’s emails is not « Journalism ». He directly involved himself in shifting an election. Real journalism is investigation, weighing both sides, digging for the TRUTH, writing a summary, letting people decide. He was fiddling around and getting Manning to do the dirty work. Respect for Manning who took responsibility and did us all a good service by exposing the truth.
37
Overall a thoughtful analysis. thank you. I'd just like to expand a bit on the sentence below.
"He might be known as an information anarchist, but by helping Trump become president, he became a handmaiden to authoritarianism."
It might more properly read:
"He might be known as an information anarchist, but by helping PUTIN HELP Trump become president, he became a handmaiden to authoritarianism."
It became clear early on that Assange and Wikileaks were NOT motivated to build an 'open society' with 'open government', but rather to aid the leaders of some countries in their conflicts against other countries.
At what point does a 'journalist' actually become a purveyor of propaganda? Where is that line crossed? It's something I've struggled to understand. I'm sure greater legal and journalistic minds than mine (which isn't saying much) have put some serious thought into that.
34
How quickly we forget.
We may want to impose loftier social struggles on Assange and Manning.
But the fact remains: they conspired to break the law. The actual law. And they both knew it.
That’s not journalism. That’s treason and espionage. Manning answered to a court of law and offered a defense. Assange has a right to do the same.
79
@Brian Zimmerman
Next step is the game of thrones. Get all the powers that be on the same side with proof the dragon is not mythology but real and we had three but now they have one that maybe even more powerful that are three making one disappear reborn in China tHe Great Dragon
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/4839/
Yikes
I've always been on the fence as to whether Assange should be considered a journalist or Wikileaks considered as journalism. Does the unfiltered dissemination of troves of documents really pass as journalism? It seems akin to pointing to the university's library when turning in a dissertation and telling the professor, "it's all there in the books on those shelves".
38
@Dave
The first amendment is not protection for "journalists" - it is protection for all of us.
@Dave
het not so very to thow him on top of bus
under the bus remains a mystery
@Dave
Problem is what Julian published was not in the library. We had no access to it until Julian exposed it. He was a provider of vital information.
1
The question we should be asking instead is “Does every county deserve free elections?”
The answer is obviously yes despite the US’ shady past with interference in foreign elections.
Despite any past history, every population deserves are fair chance at an election based on truth and policy the candidates put forth. “Do no harm” would be a moral code Wikileaks and Assange to abide by.
Clinton’s innocuous email trove could have been released 6 weeks later with no effect on the election, but this massive data dump seemingly coordinated with the Russians and team Trump they all know would have a devastating effect on Hillary. They all knew that voters would never peruse the vast email trove, but the news would imply wrongdoing and that would be enough. That is deliberate foreign interference and should be considered an international crime.
115
@GO
"Does every country deserve free elections?"
See George W. Bush/Jeb Bush - theft of Florida 2000.
9
@GO So vote caging, cross-check, outright voter purges and gerrymandering have no effect on American elections? Perhaps Americans should wonder why their elections are so fragile before they blame Russia for any and all dysfunction.
18
@ Steve Bruns
Of course all of those things do matter. But the fact that gerrymandering or voter suppression exist doesn’t make it ok for Wikileaks and Russia to try to influence an election!!!
9
I'm afraid that charges against Assange will produce a new precedent. Will truth or justice be part of the outcome when honest journalists are already branded as "the enemy of the people?" Aren't we being attacked from both the outside and inside?
5
@PC How was/is Assange a journalist? He has no credentials that I've read about. He's not even a blogger? He's an information sharer and an information thief. I don't see that his situation has any relation to a free press.
3
@PC
"Enemy of the people" is Trump's branding. Sane people who respect journalism know better.
Assange is not a journalist. He may have initially posed as a journalist to get credibility but he either was never a journalist or became corrupted in short order.
Once he arranged to dump hacked emails by one of the presidential nominees in an effort to help the other, he became a foreign actor serving as an extension of Russian intelligence and should be treated as such.
Claims that Julian Assange is a journalist just because he called himself one are specious.
In addition, Chelsea Manning was a troubled person and his cynical use of Manning and abandonment of her while she sat in our prison system was just nasty. I hope she returns the favor.
2
Threat to the First Amendment? This controversy isn't about that, although it should be. This is about Hillary, and Trump, and Russiagate, even though the charges have nothing whatever to do with that.
Assange is charged with things done in 2010. Those things were widely cheered here and in the progressive press at the time, rightly so. They embarrassed the Republican wars.
However, later he was against Hillary.
Being against Hillary later means that he is condemned on these pages now, even for the things that were cheered on these pages at the time.
Assange hero to villain, it is all about Trump, all about things six years after the events charged. There is no intellectual honest in it at all, much less real considerations of proper balance of Constitutional protections.
As for freedoms, I'd submit the test should be the public good, as in the "choice of evils" defense. Some things should be revealed. Which ones? We know them when we see them. These, for example.
20
@Mark Thomason, I've never admired Assange, but I think people are allowed to change their opinions based on what they learn about the man.
The public good is a much more subjective standard than the choice of evils defense. I suspect that Donald Trump would define the public good much differently than you. I prefer to defend the First Amendment.
16
@Mark Thomason "There is no intellectual honest in it at all" ... Hackers don't do well after hacking into government owned property. It is just a thing of respect and the violation thereof that irritates people about hackers.
4
@Andrew -- Especially when they reveal crimes, including murder and torture.
Actions cited as being in furtherance of a conspiracy need not be illegal, unethical or bad, in themselves. No more than is buying a ski mask. But a charge of conspiracy must specify an action in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that, along with the proscribed object of the conspiracy, must be set out in the indictment and proved for a conviction.
To call such specified action an "element" of the crime may be technically correct, but it is misleading to suggest that a journalist performing such specified action necessarily jeopardizes himself because it is an "element" of some conspiracy. Otherwise he could not safely buy a ski mask.
12
I was watching the PBS Newshour and one of the discussants of this story expressed fear that with the current administration's campaign against journalists that criticize it the arrest of Assange will just add to the problems of those journalists.
I had to laugh at the irony as it was Assange who played a major part in getting Trump elected. Probably if he hadn't leaked Clinton and the Dems emails, his case would have been forgotten.
36
@Steve
Did you really want a cheater for president. Hillary cheated Bernie Sanders out of the primary. She stole the election. I could not vote for her.
If Assange actually attempted to "hack" a computer he did not own or have legal control over, then he knew he could be subject to criminal prosecution in the U.S. In such case, he took his chances.
The bogeymen, the Russians, are not the issue here--as indicated by some comments. As a lawyer, I would take information from anyone and attempt to use it in court if it helped my client. It would be a violation of my fiduciary duty to my client to do otherwise. The same certainly applies to the duties of journalists.
Regardless of the legality or illegality of his actions, I personally respect Julian Assange--as well as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. They have walked the walk, not just talked the talk.
The real danger is government, not a few guys pulling the rug out from under politicians who lie to us and disrespect us. I only hope that were I in a position to do as much good as Assange, Manning and Snowden have done that I would have the courage to do it.
30
@Duane Coyle- But at the end of the day all 3 broke the law.
7
@Duane Coyle And you probably would be disbarred in the process . Best of luck to you if you go that route in a criminal prosecution .
3
@Duane Coyle
Chelsea Manning was a troubled person placed in a position of confidence & trust by our military which she violated & what good came of it? Manning was no Daniel Ellsberg. She was cynically used by Assange.
It's a mistake to deify people like Manning & Assange as heroes or 'journalists' just because there have been principled people who released confidential information for the public good - like Daniel Ellsberg. Or Jeffrey Wigand who released documents revealing what Brown & Williamson knew about nicotine. Ellsberg wanted transparency about the Vietnam War because those prosecuting the war - over decades - knew it was unwinnable yet continued sending thousands of American soldiers to their deaths.
Wigand knew cigarettes were a delivery system for an addictive carcinogenic drug. In both cases, they were attempting to save lives. Nothing of the kind is true of Manning or Assange.
In what way did dumping Hillary's emails serve the public good?
Manning and Assange were just weird people with psychological issues/grudges.
If every troubled or unstable person holding a security clearance in our govt. or the U.S. military was praised for violating the trust we place in them in order to aid sketchy lawless entities like Wikileaks, imagine the mess we'd be in.
The NYT and Washington Post were held to journalistic standards when they published the Pentagon papers. Not true of WikiLeaks.
--a person who thinks Daniel Ellsberg is a great American.
16
The standard for an action is whether it is a crime if any person doing it. Being someone that works for a news organization does not provide any special status. If publishing is not a crime, it is not a crime for anyone. If hacking into a system is a crime for anybody, it is a crime for everybody.
55
@Michael Blazin
I believe that, in the case of hacking, what constitutes a crime is a bit more complex than that. Hacking into a system is not always a crime. In fact, most hacking is perfectly legal. (So-called "white-hat" hacking is legal and far more common than the illegal, "black-hat" variety.) Furthermore - at least, I think this remains true today - three states (including Georgia) have no laws against hacking.
1
Hacking into any computer without a legal court order, is in itself against the law. Also, what is the motive, whether one is being paid, bribed or threatened to do the hack, is another story altogether. Although, I want, and believe we all deserve honest, and transparent government, and the same in our leaders, those appointed, and elected at every level of government, the age of digital media, has proven to be very dangerous to even a private citizen, to retain their own data, and information. It is a slippery slope.
6
This morning Stephanie Miller and Malcolm Nance were savaging Assange on the radio.
Later in the day Thom Hartmann leaned the other way quite a bit. Still later, on NPR , they mounted almost a straight up defense of Julian.
I’m with Miller and Nance. That way far left is too pure and self righteous. They should go away if we’re to have any hope of unifying the Democratic Party.
18
The author seems to think that an act cannot be a crime if it is “standard practice” for a journalist. That is not the test of legality or constitutionality. Moreover, it sounds like the kind of test that Trump would advocate for his own conduct—if it is standard for Trump, it cannot be illegal.
20
Assange was not arrested for any activity that a journalist would be involved in. He was arrested for helping to break into federal computer systems, not for receiving information as a journalist. It is also pretty well established that he has working connections with Russian intelligence.
Were this a case of arresting a journalist doing his or her work, as in the case of the Pentagon Papers, I'd be disturbed. It is not this. It is someone with Russian intelligence connections who was helping someone to commit espionage against the United States.
212
@Art Mills
except -- there is no proof.
This will go nowhere ... that's if the UK even lets him come.
@Art Mills
Rupert Murdoch's editors broke into computer systems to hack phone calls.
2
Assange focused only on revealing the secrets of a democratic country and did nothing for the secrets of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran or others. His actions ruin the future of investigative journalism.
Anyway with authoritarian governments rising and with data discovery strategies, the time left for independent journalism in this century is short. And there is no money in it, since there are millions of willing volunteers to write articles. So this profession does not have much wind beneath its sails, anyway.
15
@Inveterate There are millions of articles written each year. But if you examine the vast majority, they are either opinions based on the reporting of others or fabrications. In all cases, this process is eating the seed stock of reliable information access for all but the richest consumers of information. It takes real work - developing and calling sources, verifying and analyzing what is gathered. The sad truth is the the production of fakery/truthful hyperbole/lies is low. The cost of producing information that is reasonably reliable or fact-checking that that is not is very high. So the need for professional journalism is as great or greater than it has every been, it's just that the surveillance economy business models and aggregation of other people's work business models have drained the money of it. Talk about exploitation of the labor of others!
But again to conflate the millions willing to write articles with the few who actually do the reportage is a mistake.
The paradox of "everyone a publisher" with Google and Facebook vacuuming out the rents, is that instead of being better informed, we are lost in white-noise, with the signal overwhelmed by the static.
8
@Eben
Facebook a publisher?
As far as I can see, it adheres to not a single commitment a well-intentioned publisher would.
It is rather, perhaps, a polluter of public opinion-space, with the underlying principle 'anybody's discourse, opinion is as good as the next person's'.
As long as that is understood, people should access Facebook for what it provides, the opinions you might as well glean from folks at the local bar on a Friday night after work.
Why do we need this, except that the need to feel cyber-connected in cyber-superficial ways has somehow been created in otherwise reasonably rational human beans.
5
Between packing the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues, installing a compliant and compromised Attorney General, incessantly haranguing about the “Fake Media”, and expressing an earnest desire to change the libel laws, I would say that journalists and their news organizations should be high alert concerning this decidedly anti-press Administration. If Trump has revealed anything about himself during his months in office it is that his raging narcissism never forgets, or forgives, any perceived slight or criticism.
145
The threat to the free press from countries like Russia, China, Turkey etc. may increase as a result of this case. Western journalist may end up being detained when visiting China for their professional activities in their home countries. Or they may end up being detained in third countries based on extradition requests.
The arrest of Assange also has a huge domestic propaganda value for Putin and Erdogan. They can use the footage of Assange being hauled away in a police van to make their own conduct when opposition figures and journalists are treated in a similar way, look less bad. This is not going to change minds of opposition supporters, but it has the effect of giving regime supporters some ammunition against arguments that this sort of behavior from the government can never be justified.
11
Apropos of nothing, are you a Battlestar Galactica Classic fan? Your NYT nickname is that of an important character who appeared in the "War of the Gods" Parts 1 & 2.
@Count Iblis
Do we not arrest and prosecute people who have broken our laws because Putin and Erdogan use it as propaganda?
1
@Count Iblis
Great Britain has disgraced itself with this perfidious act. Kick the UK out of the EU as soon as possible.
Given what we see as "normal journalistic practice" throughout the industry, it is not surprising that quite a few of them are breaking the law. Journalists can be a pretty odious bunch, largely devoid of scruples or ethics in their pursuit of the next big headline. The defense that Assange is just being a journalist is hardly a defense at all; many journalists deserve some jail time. Many show little respect for privacy, abuse their privileges under the first amendment, and don't hesitate to ruin lives to make their careers. Assange should remind us that journalists serve the public interest only as a byproduct of serving their own.
8
@Tom Meadowcroft
Blaming the messenger is easy. I would like to see claims like yours backed up with many, many examples.
4
"Manning asked Assange for help cracking the password. There was no indication, then or now, that Assange succeeded..."
Who cares if Assange succeeded? Did Assange AGREE to help Manning crack the password or not?
Manning asking for help may be enough to indict Manning but it is obviously insufficient to charge Assange with anything; much less convict him.
21
@NY Times Fan. Do you think Trump or Barr care about such legal niceties as evidence and legal standards of proof?
12
Cyberscoop says Assange "agreed to assist" Manning crack the password, and that further, Assange "indicated that he had been trying to crack the password..."
"After Manning provided Assange with 'hundreds of thousands' of government files, Assange 'agreed to assist' Manning find more material by unlocking a password that was protected in a hash value, according to the Department of Justice."
Further, "Two days after Manning provided 'part of a password' to Assange, the WikiLeaks founder "indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had ‘no luck so far,’” the indictment states. There is no suggestion in the indictment Assange successfully cracked the hashed password."
7
"Still, if you read the indictment a lot of the things that journalists do routinely are part of Assange's, alleged crimes" A lot of what an operating room doctor does is routinely done by murderers as well. The same with soldiers and police. With life and death matters comes enormous responsibility. The Ecuadorans tell us he couldn't even be responsible for his cat. He isn't a journalist. He doesn't honor you, your trade or your principles. I don't know why you conflate yourself with him in any way.
222
@Rick Gage
Sorry, Rick. This is hopelessly ad hominem.
What is at issue here, in case you hadn't noticed, is principles on the basis of which journalists and others operate.
One bad apple does not condemn the entire apple-cart, does it? ... which apple-cart may, admittedly, for other reasons, utterly collapse.
The world is a complicated place. Those of us who do not awaken to that reality tend to suffer the consequences.
19
@Rick Gage
" a lot of the things that journalists do routinely are part of Assange's, alleged crimes"
M Goldberg's opinion piece is a real mess full of contradictions. Do journalists routinely assist in hacking computer systems ?
According to indictment Assange:
- provided tools to access the password file of the classified system (linux disk) and instructed Manning how to use it.
- received password's hash and tried to crack it
- requested more of the file to complete the cracking
Whether his cracking attempts were successful or not, indictment says nothing about but ... they got the password in the end. Technically, decoding the password most likely exceeds Manning's and Assange technical capabilities and it's highly likely they got helped, but one should not exaggerate this difficulty either, most likely they used any of the well known brutal force cracking tools.
M Goldberg, do you really think that cracking passwords, which is analogue to opening a physical safe, picking a lock or forcing locked door or a drawer is a "routine journalistic practice" ?
Your statement is pure nonsense.
2
“Is Assange’s Arrest a Threat to the Free Press?“
No! The only threat is that of a schism in the left. The Greenwalders support him while the rest of the left rightly eschews his general anti America point of view. A dangerous divide going forward.
13
@RjW
So, you imply being 'anti-American' is to be condemned?
Let's try for some finesse here.
(The government of) America is guilty of many crimes, against its own citizens, as well as against the citizens of other jurisdictions.
Having an anti-American point of view is no crime, is it ... yet?
If he's to be condemned, it cannot be for simple-minded 'anti-americanism', ok?
4
@An American in Sydney
Ok then. Sure. You’re right, more or less. I have many friends that deploy the equivalency argument that because the US did so much bad stuff in central and South America that Putin is the good guy by comparison. I interpret this as unreasonable, as most equivalencies are. It’s a self hating unproductive world view
That’s what I meant by anti American. I’m fully aware of the misdeeds of cia and State in decades past.
3
@An American in Sydney, ya know, when Noam Chomsky criticizes only America and never any other place, people object and he responds that its far harder to criticize one's own government than somebody else's. Which is pretty much junk in the modern world, but he gets away with it, and his followers get away with it, and his admirers get away with it and on an on.
Which makes it so incredibly ironic when "An American in Sydney" scolds the rest of us for condemning the Australian Julian Assange, from whom we haven't heard a peep about the concentration camps on Papua New Guinea or the interception of Rohingya carrying vessels headed for Australia on the high seas.
No, being anti-American isn't any kind of crime. But it is still free speech here, and probably in Australia, to condemn someone who hates one's country because they hate one's country. That's done all the time by both good people and bad. And if we're having a discussion over whether or not Assange is protected under the First Amendment, the last thing we should discuss is whether or not commenters shouldn't criticize Julian Assange for being anti-American. Access to the First Amendment should not be confined to Australians living in Britain by Americans living in Australia.
1
Assange is "an odious person" because of unproven accusations disseminated by the US government and propagated by the guileless stenographers of mainstream press outlets?
No, he's a hero for reporting on the war crimes and hypocrisy of the world's bully, the United States of America.
68
@CL
When someone is dubbed 'odious', it behooves us to look at the accuser, as much as at the accused.
'Odious' is a label slapped on people one finds offensive.
The values of those who see offense need to be examined. They hardly justify their views simply by using a certain label, right? (That'd be Fox.)
Sadly, American political discourse has all too frequently of late descended to the level of mere name-calling.
Among our self-appointed "leaders", who can you point to as cogent, persuasive, to people who are in the habit of considering ideas in all their complexity?
If sophistication of political discourse is any indication, the US simply continues its descent, down the drain.
21
@CL. is he a hero for suggesting to Donald Trump Jr. that his father not accept the election results if he lost? Is he a hero for suggesting that Seth Rich was his source and was murdered by the Clinton campaign? Is he a hero for refusing to curate his releases, endangering the lives of innocent people?
Is he a hero for claiming that those who protest Vladimir Putin are American puppets?
You may hate the United States, but you need to take a closer look at Assange.
34
@An American in Sydney, Goldberg made clear why she finds Assange odious--his misogyny and anti-Semitism, his interference to help Trump, his claim that Seth Rich was his source for the DNC leaks and was murdered as a result. This isn't mere name-calling.
31
You are correct, Ms. Goldberg. Anything the Justice Department might use against Mr. Assange can be used against "establishment" journalists. What is the difference between what the NYT published about Iraq and what Assange revealed?
While it might be hard for "us" to read the truth of things that happened in our tragic and shameful Iraq incursion, and disheartening to see the shenanigans of the DNC/Clinton campaign, are we damning the messenger because we don't like facing the message?
57
@Ellen thanks Ellen for acknowledging the importance of facing the shameful actions in Iraq and the truth of what happened behind the scenes in the Democratic Party. The focus should be at least in part on what was exposed and in my view what needed to be revealed.
37
@Ellen
Exposing "the truth of things that happened" does not give one a license to engage in criminal activity. That's what he's charged with. Had he not engaged in that criminal activity the US could have done nothing to him.
9
@Ellen
We must save Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Many on the right and left support him when they realize what he was doing. Telling us our truths.
The freedom of the press is to protect every individual's inalienable right to use a device to amplify their representation in the field of public opinion such that the field is level between all individuals and herds. It is not more than this, though one would attempt to amplify their representation to represent that it is so. It, among all inalienable rights are about an individual's inborn rights to voice, replicate, and defend their representation in the field of public affairs. The press is a weapon in the field of public opinion and all individuals have the right to bear these arms.
5
@LycanR1, please read the First Amendment again. It specifically protects a free press, which the framers considered essential to democracy.
3
Yes, there was a time when Assange could genuinely have been called a "hero." But he gave up the right to be called that - and his right to claim "freedom of the press" - when he knowingly and deliberately became an agent of the Russian government, and interfered in the elections of a sovereign nation. His hatred for HRC was well-known (since she was one of the first to call for him to be charged with crimes), so it was almost inevitable that when HRC ran for president, Assange would help the other candidate. But since he could not do so directly, he found a "backdoor" by simply assisting the Russians in THEIR efforts to help Trump get elected. Sorry, but I have no respect or admiration left for Mr. Assange, and his claimed freedom of the press does not cover any illegal acts he actually undertook. And frankly, he is lucky that he is only facing one charge from all his chicanery. Like the heroes of myth, he was ultimately taken down by his own hubris.
310
@Maani Rantel
No one is 100% blameless. So if the gov't wants to go after a journalist it will sift through its massive trove of surveillance it is collecting in Utah and find something small that journalist did and prosecute him. Among the purposes of prosecuting Assange is to shut him up, torture him in jail with solitary confinement to get his sources and to intimidate every journalist even thinking about exposing our gov'ts latest misdeeds. That is why this column is so disingenuous. Some journalists who support the gov't and/or even promote it's lies see themselves above such retribution.
You know what Niemoller said: "First they came for..."
21
@Maani Rantel -- "(since she was one of the first to call for him to be charged with crimes)"
He had also obtained documents in which She had sought to have him murdered. She did that, too.
How far can She go before he is allowed to resent it, and oppose her?
11
@Maani Rantel Because you have no respect for Assange, he should be extradited and tried for publishing government secrets? (And, if they weren't published, no one would know what the word "Assange" meant.) I've taught free speech courses and always begin by saying that the defense of free speech means supporting the rights of some really odious people.
7