One hot potato topic in the news right now is the Julian Assange case. Publisher, journalist, humanitarian and innovator Julian Assange is being held in a UK high security prison without committing a crime. Contrary to most people’s knowledge of the case, Julian has not been convicted in the case brought by the US authorities for publishing evidence of their crimes committed during the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. They have been detaining him in a UK high security prison for almost five years. He is not serving any sentence. There is no conviction. How can an innocent man be kept in prison for almost five years and indefinitely into the future like this? What kind of justice system allows this?
Assange did something very different than the journalism we have become used to; he made the source documentation available alongside the articles he wrote. He respected the intelligence of his readers and allowed them to see for themselves and make up their own minds what they thought of the situation, promoting productive discussion. What has been happening is that the public is being pelted with narratives that trigger strong emotions and cause opposition and division, all based on the delivery of a story that may or may not have any basis in truth.
Why can’t we have journalism that publishes evidence of the story that is able to be verified by the people so the people can use their critical thinking skills? Why is showing proof of the truth such a threat to governments and to the media? Assange’s conviction could be a death sentence to Free Press reporting and investigative journalism. Why are so many journalists so silent about Julian Assange when his outcome affects their own future?
US Army Intelligence Specialist Whistleblower Chelsea (Bradley) Manning who, acting alone, took the classified files, served only seven years in prison and her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama. Julian Assange, the publisher/journalist who published the files, as did many other news organizations, faces 175 years imprisonment and a possible death penalty.
Why is there such a discrepancy between the proposed sentence for Assange and what Chelsea Manning served? Manning broke laws with the government, her employer and her country. Assange broke no law, is a member of the free press with Free Speech protections, and isn’t even an American citizen. According to University of Chicago Distinguished Political Science Professor John Mearsheimer, “Manning broke the law by leaking material that was classified to Assange. But Assange is a journalist and he did not break the law, as it is commonplace for a journalist to publish classified information that is passed on to them by government insiders.” Professor Mearsheimer believes it is a straight-forward case and is asking the UK High Court not to extradite Assange to the United States.
But that huge life and death sentence with which Assange is being threatened? Is the U.S. applying the law fairly across the two cases? So many things in the Assange Case do not follow usual customs and established laws and precedents. One might even think that a government, not wanting to have its reckless behavior shown to the public it is sworn to protect, could possibly be using the potential life of Julian Assange to intimidate the press and the public because they don’t like being embarrassed by uncomfortable truths.
Assange’s wife Stella states: “The purpose isn’t just to put him on trial; it’s to parade him as a political prisoner essentially to show him off as ‘if you embarrass the powers that be, this is what will happen to you’ as a deterrent for other courageous journalists, publishers and whistleblowers that want to expose wrongdoing that they shouldn’t because they will be hounded.”