How the U.S. Will Deal with Assange
Published in Sina
(China) on 13 December 2010
by Yude Qing (link to original)
The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, was caught the other day, but the U.S. has yet to find a way to deal with him. This is because the premise for the extradition of Assange is his criminal charges. Which U.S crime has Assange committed remains a question. Also, are the actions of Assange and WikiLeaks justifiable?
The Swedish prosecutors issued a warrant of arrest against Assange for allegations of rape and sexual assault. There is no apparent connection between the charges that Assange is facing and his career of leaking secret information.
Some U.S. senators believe that the leaking of confidential U.S. documents is technically an act of terrorism; therefore all U.S. laws must be exhausted to deal with Assange. If there is no such appropriate law, they will quickly create a new one. However, what stands between the accused and the accusers are two stumbling blocks. The first obstacle is that Assange did not steal the secret information but leaked it. Next is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, has been refined for more than a hundred years.
Almost all facts have been exhausted, and there is nothing that proves that there was more to Assange's leaking U.S. classified documents. Obviously the one who stole the classified documents was U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning. Manning took the initiative to provide the classified documents to WikiLeaks, even though WikiLeaks and Assange never instructed Manning to steal the documents. What they did was to publish the information provided. This is just an act of news reportage. If this is a crime, then not only will Assange be charged, The New York Times and all other media outlets who have published the contents of the leaks should also be charged.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, although fewer than one hundred words, is the cornerstone to freedom of speech and press in America. In 1971, The New York Times and the Washington Post published confidential documents about the Vietnam War and angered the Nixon Administration. These two newspapers were charged for leaking national secrets by the Nixon Administration. In the end, the Nixon Administration lost while the media won. The U.S. learned an important lesson from this trial: that it is the government's responsibility and not the media's responsibility to protect state secrets and decide on what types of secrets to protect. Then there is no legal issue if WikiLeaks and Assange did not steal any classified documents and were only reporting on these state secrets.
Although the U.S. court admitted that the act of leaking brings danger to the country and its citizens, it is still necessary for the government to prove what kind of direct harm such a breach of confidentiality brings. Obviously, this is an impossible task for the government. Therefore, such a breach of confidentiality is the price the U.S. has to pay for maintaining freedom of speech and of the press.
What WikiLeaks is entangled with is that Assange is an Australian and not an American. Perhaps many American politicians are able to tolerate leaks by Americans but not other parties exposing U.S. secrets. This is definitely a two-level problem. It is perfectly justifiable that Americans supervise their government. However, for an Australian to expose the U.S government made it look like others are interfering with American affairs. And this is a new problem arising due to globalization and the information age.
Obviously, with globalization deepening and the information age progressing, there is no one who can stay out of world affairs. People are no longer passively driven into the global market or global trade or passively shaped by globalization. People are actively involved in world affairs and changing the world while relying on the convenience of information technology. In such an age, world citizenship is at its unprecedented high and is viewed as a legitimate right. This is also the backdrop against which WikiLeaks and Assange are appearing and receiving the most support.
No matter what happens, Assange is still lucky. The acts of WikiLeaks are difficult to be defined as illegal in the United States. However, such acts are not legal, for it is illegal to expose state secrets. The charge against Assange for the leaks and his extradition are a complicated case of diplomacy. At a procedural level, [the U.S.] not only has to negotiate with the U.K or Sweden, it also has to negotiate with Assange's home country, Australia. This is cumbersome enough, but of course the most important point is that there are few countries who dare to criticize freedom of speech and press, which is such a politically incorrect stance, on an international level. Obviously extraditing Assange from the European Union is not a glorious thing for the U.S. government. The undertakings of WikiLeaks will continue.
The Swedish prosecutors issued a warrant of arrest against Assange for allegations of rape and sexual assault. There is no apparent connection between the charges that Assange is facing and his career of leaking secret information.
Some U.S. senators believe that the leaking of confidential U.S. documents is technically an act of terrorism; therefore all U.S. laws must be exhausted to deal with Assange. If there is no such appropriate law, they will quickly create a new one. However, what stands between the accused and the accusers are two stumbling blocks. The first obstacle is that Assange did not steal the secret information but leaked it. Next is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, has been refined for more than a hundred years.
Almost all facts have been exhausted, and there is nothing that proves that there was more to Assange's leaking U.S. classified documents. Obviously the one who stole the classified documents was U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning. Manning took the initiative to provide the classified documents to WikiLeaks, even though WikiLeaks and Assange never instructed Manning to steal the documents. What they did was to publish the information provided. This is just an act of news reportage. If this is a crime, then not only will Assange be charged, The New York Times and all other media outlets who have published the contents of the leaks should also be charged.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, although fewer than one hundred words, is the cornerstone to freedom of speech and press in America. In 1971, The New York Times and the Washington Post published confidential documents about the Vietnam War and angered the Nixon Administration. These two newspapers were charged for leaking national secrets by the Nixon Administration. In the end, the Nixon Administration lost while the media won. The U.S. learned an important lesson from this trial: that it is the government's responsibility and not the media's responsibility to protect state secrets and decide on what types of secrets to protect. Then there is no legal issue if WikiLeaks and Assange did not steal any classified documents and were only reporting on these state secrets.
Although the U.S. court admitted that the act of leaking brings danger to the country and its citizens, it is still necessary for the government to prove what kind of direct harm such a breach of confidentiality brings. Obviously, this is an impossible task for the government. Therefore, such a breach of confidentiality is the price the U.S. has to pay for maintaining freedom of speech and of the press.
What WikiLeaks is entangled with is that Assange is an Australian and not an American. Perhaps many American politicians are able to tolerate leaks by Americans but not other parties exposing U.S. secrets. This is definitely a two-level problem. It is perfectly justifiable that Americans supervise their government. However, for an Australian to expose the U.S government made it look like others are interfering with American affairs. And this is a new problem arising due to globalization and the information age.
Obviously, with globalization deepening and the information age progressing, there is no one who can stay out of world affairs. People are no longer passively driven into the global market or global trade or passively shaped by globalization. People are actively involved in world affairs and changing the world while relying on the convenience of information technology. In such an age, world citizenship is at its unprecedented high and is viewed as a legitimate right. This is also the backdrop against which WikiLeaks and Assange are appearing and receiving the most support.
No matter what happens, Assange is still lucky. The acts of WikiLeaks are difficult to be defined as illegal in the United States. However, such acts are not legal, for it is illegal to expose state secrets. The charge against Assange for the leaks and his extradition are a complicated case of diplomacy. At a procedural level, [the U.S.] not only has to negotiate with the U.K or Sweden, it also has to negotiate with Assange's home country, Australia. This is cumbersome enough, but of course the most important point is that there are few countries who dare to criticize freedom of speech and press, which is such a politically incorrect stance, on an international level. Obviously extraditing Assange from the European Union is not a glorious thing for the U.S. government. The undertakings of WikiLeaks will continue.