What good is the goose, when the goose giveth and the law taketh away?
The usual arguments have once again sprung up, both in defense of and in opposition to Assange’s activities. A dangerous precedent could potentially be set on either side, as one asks the question of where the blurred line between journalism and espionage really lies.
Many hold the belief that since the disclosures made by WikiLeaks compromised the safety of individuals involved in international operations, Assange’s role in the controversy constitutes a crime.
Individuals who risk their lives cooperating with the U.S. government could be dissuaded from doing so in the future, should a leaker culture continue to foster in regard to U.S. intelligence. This may have consequences for our ability to execute the type of guerrilla-warfare tactics used in the series of Middle Eastern wars and skirmishes the United States has been involved in recently.
The idea of investigative journalism as a valuable tool and linchpin to a free America is also important in this debate. The revelations uncovered as a result of WikiLeaks disclosures related to the 2016 Democratic presidential primary shed light on the level of corruption, bigotry, and disingenuousness at the highest levels of a major national political party.
“This could make several points of difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” DNC Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall wrote in an uncovered email.
Ultimately, as of now, it’s clearly the DOJ’s position that “Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention.”
If the DOJ can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, that may be enough to silence Assange for the rest of his mortal life.
