As US prosecutors gear up for an attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange, they are combing through years of public talking points,
never tested in court, but often bandied about as something that makes
this more than just a First Amendment question.
Assange’s actions, after all, are centered around informing the American
public of the actions of the American government.. It proved
embarrassing for highly placed officials, but actual crimes, if any, are
going to have to be built around ideas that he knew or intended to “injure” the US through the leaks, and the solicitation of the leaks.
These aren’t new arguments, of course, dating back to the Chelsea Manning case. In 2010 officials claimed Assange had “blood on his hands.” While they maintained the leaks were risky, they later conceded that no one was actually outed by WikiLeaks, and the claimed “harm” never held water.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) later revised this from harming America or
harming actual, real people to “harming the war effort,” and that’s
really what the bulk of the leaks were about. Embarrassing officials,
and revealing the excesses of the American warfare state to the American
public were a blow to selling the public on constant war. It’s not that
this is illegal, as such, but it’s just not done, which is why
officials struggle with Assange’s actions being effectively the meat of
what journalists are intended to do.
It is a testament to how little the prosecutors have on Assange that
long-discredited arguments are still being offered as the centerpieces
of the case. Those arguments may never have actually faced any courtroom
scrutiny in the past, but the fact that they failed so miserably in the
court of public opinion years ago can’t possibly bode well for proper
trials.
Beyond allegations of what Assange did, Ecuador is offering a series of after-the-fact allegations against Assange, accusing him of using the embassy for spying.
The evidence for this isn’t very strong, but Ecuador clearly feels it
needs to make better excuses for expelling him than simply wanting money
from the IMF.
Prosecutors Revive Long Discredited Narratives for Assange Trial
Claim Assange intended to 'injure' US through leaks
Jason Ditz is Senior Editor for Antiwar.com. He has 20 years of experience in foreign policy research and his work has appeared in The American Conservative, Responsible Statecraft, Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Washington Times, and the Detroit Free Press.
Join the Discussion!
We welcome thoughtful and respectful comments. Hateful language, illegal content, or attacks against Antiwar.com will be removed.
For more details, please see our Comment Policy.
×