Is Julian Assange a Journalist?
The world is engulfed in the character assassination of Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange. The ever popular Ad hominem argument appears to suggest, if he is not a journalist, then he is not afforded the protections of the Free Press.
None-the-less, Julian Assange was armed with no more than a keyboard when the United States of America labeled him a "terrorist" nearly a decade ago.
Five years later, the offices of Charlie Hebdo were attacked and the free world united to proclaim the importance of protecting dissenting voices. The world wide media - social, satirical and news - also united in condemning the attack as assault on freedom of expression. "We shall not be afraid!" was chanted from the rooftops of every liberal democracy on the planet.
Where are they now?
Who will defend Julian Assange's right to wield a pen?
Is Wikileaks a Media Organisation?
Wikileaks' direct audience is barely in the thousands. Many have argued, since it doesn't have a world-wide or even national news outlet, it cannot be regarded as a Media Organisation.
Which raises the obvious question: so how did Wikileaks disclosures reach a world-wide audience then?
Following historical Wikileaks Press Conferences held around the world reveals how this incredible feat was achieved. Wikileaks demonstrated to world-wide news organisations how the guaranteed anonymity of sources, derived from digital technology, could best serve the Free Press.
This feature is incredibly important to media organisations operating within the borders of nationally restricted press freedoms. It means that, no matter how badly any journalist might be tortured, a particular source could not be revealed because nobody knew, not even Wikileaks, who the sources were.
To any sane western journalist who has attempted to cover stories in countries like North Korea, China, or even Russia, it is clearly understood that citizens who wish to liberate their national press are not the enemy.
It is the Free Press who Wikileaks publishes for and it is the Free Press who gave us world wide coverage of its anonymous disclosures. Julian Assange is responsible for providing a safe environment for whistleblowers to come forward, the Free Press is responsible for publishing it.
Is Wikileaks a Threat to National Security?
Waiting until decades after tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been slaughtered before enlightening a citizenry about what has been done in their names serves no purpose other than to destroy the sacred democratic trust that citizens place in their governments.
As Julian Assange carefully explained when creating Wikileaks, the threat to National Security is its own resistance to reform. And, just as he predicted, governments who refuse to provide adequate internal processes to deal with corruption and crime within their own ranks have created their own whistleblowers.
An example of 'inaction creating oppositional action' is clearly demonstrated in a US case where seven Navy Seals spent nearly a decade trying to bring their commanding officer's Iraq crimes to account. Given no ability to redress the case internally, the Seals were forced expose the crimes.
In a knee-jerk reaction, the case has since convened in a US military court as a blatant attempt to clear the accused of any crimes.
Recently, the US government flatly rejected intervention by the International Court of Justice, whose primary purpose is to investigate war crimes. It is the position of the Hague that atrocities may have occurred during the Afghanistan war as well however, the US government has refused visas to the investigative authority and threatened sanctions against them.
It should go without saying that excusing war crimes and refusing to redress them is no replacement for military reform that could otherwise prevent them.
Committing war crimes against innocent by-standers is arguably the largest threat to National Security, with the demonstrable capacity to exponentially increase the numbers of those a nation claims to be defeating.
Is Julian Assange a Sex Offender?
As with any domestic law, it depends entirely on which country is making the allegations. In Saudi Arabia, for example, a female tourist wearing a V-Neck shirt is alleged to be in violation of their unique sex offender laws.
Under extradition law however, the 'dual criminality' of the offense is a prerequisite - that is - it must be an offense in both the extraditing country and the country requesting extradition.
In normal circumstances, it would not be appropriate to discuss a case that is before the courts however, Sweden dropped the investigation and made the details of the case public. With that information at hand, it is now entirely appropriate to consider the dual criminality of the case.
All-be-it a tad on the kinky side, the Swedish prosecution contends that sexual intercourse occurred between consenting adults before, during and after the acts. Neither the UK prosecution, the plaintiffs nor the defendant have ever claimed otherwise.
And while the UK does, indeed, have domestic laws against sex offenses, the offenses detailed in the extradition request are in no way similar to any UK domestic laws, which are explicitly based on mutual consent between mentally able adults.
In fact, it is difficult to find any liberal democracy in the West that has legislated any similar sexual offenses of the nature proposed in the extradition request. Even those who are into bondage or sadomasochism are not committing any offense, so long as it is between mentally able, consenting adults.
Given the 'dual criminality' requirement of extradition law, Julian Assange should never have been placed under house arrest since he posed no more danger to the immediate community than any other adult who engages in consensual sex.
It is extremely egregious that the UK prosecution would entrap an Australian citizen with offenses that fail the dual criminality test.
Comments