Gordon L. Weil
Julian Assange creates problems.
The Wikileaks founder does it not only by releasing stolen
documents, but also by his own release from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Assange enjoyed Ecuador's diplomatic protection, because he
feared the British would send him to the U.S. to be tried for releasing secret
documents. The former Ecuadorian
president shared his dislike of the U.S.
His successor differed and had Assange expelled.
Bradley (later, Chelsea) Manning was an American soldier who
stole documents and passed them to Wikileaks, an online news group aimed at
embarrassing governments by exposing their secret communications. The theft was illegal and Manning, subject to
military law, was imprisoned.
But the revelation itself of government secrets is a
function of the free press, guaranteed by the Constitution. Was Assange's action protected by freedom of
the press? Could he be arrested for
receiving documents he knew were stolen?
A free press can keep an independent watch on
government. It represents the public,
which cannot exercise control of supposedly democratic institutions if it lacks
information on what its leaders are doing.
In a mass democracy, government often sees itself as
separate from citizens, not subject to them.
A free press tries to help the public control their government,
especially if that means revealing matters officials would prefer to keep
secret.
Of course, there must be limits on what should be published.
For example, the media should not
directly cause the death of people or reveal actions under way that directly
affect national security.
Assange's supporters see him as a member of the free
press. To hold government accountable,
they find it acceptable to publish stolen documents. Otherwise, government could shield itself
behind a claim of secrecy.
The father of the concept that people have the right to
break the law for a higher purpose was Henry David Thoreau, a Massachusetts man
who inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
He accepted that, if caught in a violation of law, a person might have
to pay the penalty, even going to jail.
The federal government has not charged Assange with a crime
for publishing secrets. Instead, he is
charged with assisting Manning in breaking the law by stealing documents. His supporters believe that even that action
is protected by freedom of the press. Assange
believes he cannot get a fair trial in the U.S.
The legal war in London about turning Assange over to
American justice may continue for years.
If he faces a court in the U.S., the system will be tested to see that
he gets a fair trial.
But there's more. Assange
strongly dislikes the U.S. and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic
presidential candidate. As an
independent journalist, he is certainly entitled to criticize and embarrass
both.
American intelligence agencies and the media have found that
Russia tried illegally to influence the presidential election, favoring Donald
Trump and opposing Clinton. The Russians
hacked the computers of the Democratic National Committee and obtained
information that could harm the Clinton effort.
The Russians, well aware of Assange's opinions, turned the
information over to Wikileaks. That
organization knew that it was relying on a source trying to undermine the
American system of government, but published the hacked emails.
Assange and Wikileaks allowed their status as independent
news providers to be exploited by knowingly helping the Russians' anti-American
moves. At that point, they shed their
independence and became weapons in a war by one government against
another. In doing so, they may have lost
their right to be considered journalists.
It remains unclear if Assange will ever be held accountable
for assisting the Russian scheme. If his
actions are rated as just plain old journalism, public confidence in the media,
already battered, will suffer even more.
Loss of independent scrutiny of government is a serious danger to the
American system of government.
Faced with groups like Wikileaks, the government and others,
like the Democrats, must also show greater discipline. Electronic communication is not absolutely
secure and may never be. People must
recognize that any electronic message may find its way to the public.
Of course, there will be real secrets that need to be better
protected. How?
Commit less to writing. Use more voice communication and faxes, which
are far more secure than the Internet. Avoid
unimportant electronic communication, because what may seem trivial could turn
out to be sensitive or open to distortion.
Above all, Americans should insist that their leaders
disclose more and not hide behind the walls of secrecy they build. But they will always need a free and
independent press.
No comments:
Post a Comment