LA Progressive

Smart Content for Smart People

  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us / Copyright Info
    • Privacy Policy
  • Topics
    • Animal Rights
    • Climate Change
    • Economic Justice
    • Education Reform
    • Elections and Campaigns
    • Environment
    • Community Calendar
    • Healthcare Reform
    • Immigration Reform
    • Labor
    • Law and Justice
    • LGBTQ
    • Progressive Issues
    • Social Justice / Racism
    • The Media
    • The Middle East
    • War and Peace
  • Authors
    • All Authors
    • Steve Hochstadt
    • Charles D. Hayes
    • David A. Love
    • Diane Lefer
    • Dick Price
    • Jerry Drucker
    • John Peeler
    • Joseph Palermo
    • Tom Hall
    • Sharon Kyle
    • Sikivu Hutchinson
  • Scorecards
    • California Assembly Criminal Justice Scorecard
    • California State Senate Criminal Justice Scorecard
  • Events
    • Left Coast Forum
    • Event Calendar
  • Subscribe

The Dangerous Rush to Judgment Against Julian Assange

Judgment Against Julian AssangeAfter years of speculation, we now know that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been accused by the Justice Department of committing crimes against the United States. We know this because an assistant U.S. attorney named Kellen S. Dwyer screwed up and inadvertently disclosed in a motion filed on Aug. 22 in an unrelated case that Assange has been secretly charged in an accusation that has been placed under seal.

The unrelated case is pending in the Eastern District of Virginia against Seitu Sulayman Kokayi, 29, who, according to The Washington Post, is linked to international terrorism and whose father in-law has been convicted of committing terrorist acts.

What we don’t know about the prosecution of Assange is virtually everything else.

For starters, we don’t know whether the charging document lodged against Assange is an indictment or simply a complaint. The difference is important because indictments are handed down by a grand jury, while complaints are generated by the Justice Department on its own initiative and are usually preliminary and superseded by subsequent indictments. If the charging document is an indictment, it would imply the department is ready to roll, and that a trial will commence as soon as Assange is arrested and extradited. (The Supreme Court has held that federal criminal trials cannot start in the defendant’s absence.)

More important, we don’t know the nature of Assange’s alleged offenses, when they allegedly were committed, or when the charges against him were filed.

Has he been charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for publishing classified material? Has he been accused of hacking in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in connection with the publication of emails taken from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential election campaign, or for receiving and publishing intelligence documents related to the CIA last year? Does he stand accused as a principal (primary actor), or is he viewed as an aider and abettor or a co-conspirator, either of Chelsea Manning, who leaked national-defense material to WikiLeaks in 2010, or the 12 Russian military officers who were indicted this July by special counsel Robert Mueller for stealing the Democratic National Committee’s emails?

We also don’t know whether Mueller’s office is responsible for going after Assange, or whether former Attorney General Jeff Sessions can claim the credit. In an April 2017 press conference, Sessions announced that arresting Assange was “now a priority.” The same month, Mike Pompeo, then director of the CIA and current secretary of state, remarked in a speech delivered to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank: “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is—a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

It’s possible that Pompeo is right, and that Assange is in fact a Russian agent and not a legitimate publisher entitled to First Amendment protections. But possibilities are not proof. Speculation is not evidence.

Whether you love Assange and see him as a source of transparency in an age of government secrecy or regard him as a pro-Trump threat to democracy, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

It’s vital to remember in this respect something we are taught in high school civics: Even the lowliest of defendants in our criminal justice system are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you love Assange and see him as a source of transparency in an age of government secrecy or regard him as a pro-Trump threat to democracy, he is entitled to that presumption. Anything less represents a dangerous rush to judgment that undermines the rule of law.

Writing in The Intercept last week, Glenn Greenwald decried the intensifying support for Assange’s extradition, not only on the right, but also among liberal Democrats who feel stung by Trump’s election and incensed by the help he may have received from Russian intelligence in scoring his improbable victory at the polls.

Trump, who professed his “love” for WikiLeaks during the campaign, is now on board with targeting Assange. Ever the opportunist, the president could easily flip back to the position he advocated in 2010 in an interview with Fox News, when he declared that Assange should receive the death penalty if brought to the U.S.

It’s important not to get swept up in the anti-Assange mania afoot today, not only because the mania undercuts the presumption of innocence, but because of the significant dangers posed to the First Amendment. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted in a 34-page analysis published in 2017:

“While courts have held that the Espionage Act and other relevant statutes allow for convictions for leaks to the press, the government has never prosecuted a traditional news organization for its receipt [and publication] of classified or other protected information.”

In the trial of Assange, the government no doubt will contend that WikiLeaks is not a legitimate news organization. It is unlikely, however, the Trump Justice Department will be able to draw a principled line between publishers that merit First Amendment protection and those who do not.

The Obama administration declined to indict Assange because of what was described as the “New York Times problem”—that if Assange were charged, The New York Times, the Post and The Guardian, among others, would also have to be prosecuted for publishing classified material.

To get around the “New York Times problem,”  the Trump DOJ will have two basic options:

First, it could elect to blow through the problem, arguing that just because the Espionage Act has never been applied to a publisher in the past, there’s a first time for everything. Indeed, as the CRS’ 2017 analysis notes, the text of the act actually prohibits both the illegal acquisition and the subsequent dissemination of classified material.

Nor would the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Pentagon Papers case preclude the prosecution of Assange. The ruling in the Pentagon Papers case held only that the government could not enjoin The Times from publishing the material disclosed by Daniel Ellsberg. It did not hold that The Times could not be prosecuted post-publication. Although the Nixon administration decided as a matter of policy not to do so, the court did not resolve whether it could have charged The Times. The issue still has not been put to rest.

Should the Trump administration succeed in obliterating the “New York Times problem,” no publication would be safe from the administration’s vengeance and overreach. Small independent news organizations—think, Truthdig, The Intercept, The Nation and others on the left—would be especially vulnerable.

Second, in lieu of a blunderbuss assault on the “New York Times problem,” the Justice Department might argue that even if WikiLeaks is considered a publisher, the First Amendment should not apply to foreign news outlets.

Surprisingly, there is scant case law on the subject. What little there is, however, suggests that even if foreign publishers may not be seen as beneficiaries of the First Amendment, the amendment safeguards the rights of Americans to read material of their own choosing.

As a little-known and long-deceased federal district court judge, Stanley Weigel, held in 1964 in an obscenity case:

“Even if it be conceded, arguendo, that the ‘foreign press’ is not a direct beneficiary of the Amendment … the Amendment does protect the public of this country. … The First Amendment surely was designed to protect the rights of readers and distributors of publications no less than those of writers or printers. Indeed, the essence of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press is not so much the right to print as it is the right to read.”

I am not a fan of Assange. Like many, I fear that he has gone over to the dark side in the global battle against regressive nationalism. But I am not willing to sacrifice or bend the First Amendment—not even a little—in an effort to silence him or rush him to some kind of American justice.

Bill Blum
TruthDig

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Bill Blum posted on November 19, 2018

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are those of the individual contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LA Progressive, its publisher, editor or any of its other contributors.

Comments

  1. Free Speech Forum says

    November 21, 2018 at 5:29 pm

    The US is a police state now. Americans should be out in the streets with pitchforks and torches, but instead they would rather shut up, cover their ears, and put their heads in the sand.

    Weird.

    Reply
  2. Bill Eisen says

    November 21, 2018 at 2:38 pm

    Isn’t it about time that the charges against Assange be unsealed and let Assange defend against the charges if not in the courts then in the press? Assange may then be tempted to reveal how he came by the Podesta emails. Was it from the Russians as the FBI contends or, perhaps, from Seth Rich, a disenchanted DNC employee who Assange had initially suggested was the source of the leak? Unfortunately, Rich was assassinated during the FBI’s investigation of the leak.

    Reply
  3. Lisa H says

    November 21, 2018 at 11:56 am

    I am a fan of Julian and think him a hero for not only for bringing to light atrocities such as the murders of Reuters journalists as disclosed by (then) Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning but by helping Edward Snowden to safety (a little known fact that it was Wikileaks that arranged his asylum). If this is to proceed and, God forbid, be successful, it wouldn’t be just alt-media outlets that would be silenced. It would be a pervasive chilling of all non-standard du jour thinking and journalism.

    It might, in fact, put this very website in jeopardy.

    Totalitarianism nips at the heels of this outcome. Disgruntled liberals who refuse to look at the real reasons for the malaise that brought about the Trump win (unemployment, a doubling down on terrible trade agreements, a livelihood that costs more for less services, a candidate whose glee for war crimes like Libya shocks the consciousness, etc.) will undoubtedly want some blood for their perceived loss. How ironic that they are now acting much like the average Trump voter – no matter how destructive their actions, it is exhilarating to blow something up just to be able to change something. The aftermath will be far more destructive and long lasting.

    Let’s hope that these so-called liberals turned neo-cons think the better of their support of charges against Assange. Our democracy, or what’s left of it, hangs in the balance.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Refugees Begging Entry

Another Brick in the Wall

Royal We

Dear Mister President: The Royal We


The LA Progressive cannot publish without your support. Please donate. Thank you.
Trump Makes Dubya Look Smart

To Brits, Trump Makes Dubya Look Smart

Lance Simmens: “He has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.”





Book-A-Bus



Please CLICK this donate button - we need your support. Thank you, LA Progressive

Article Categories

Africa | Animal Rights | California
Climate Change | Defense | Economic Justice
Education Reform | Elections | Environment
Events | Foreign Policy | Gay Rights
Healthcare Reform | Immigration Reform
Juvenile Justice | Labor | Latin America
Law and Justice | Los Angeles | Prison Reform
Progressive Issues | Science & Religion
Sexism | Social Justice | Terminal Velocity | The Body Politic
| The Media | The Middle East | Veterans
War and Peace | Wellness

The LA Progressive cannot publish without your support. Please donate. Thank you.

Los Angeles

LA County Construction Vote

L.A. Jail Vote: Wrong Side of History

Peter Laarman: Everyone in the auditorium on today could smell the bad faith in the comments of supervisors Barger, Hahn, and Ridley Thomas.

More Posts from Los Angeles

The Middle East

Anti-Semitism Claims

Don’t Let Bogus Claims of “Anti-Semitism” Derail the Pro-Palestinian Movement

Jim Lafferty: The pro-Israeli lobby is rapidly losing its propaganda campaign aimed at silencing those who dare to criticize the bad behavior of the Israel government.

More Posts from The Middle East

Economic Issues

Forex Market

How to Get Started in Forex Market

Daffa Zaky: Probably the number 1 thing you need to understand is to learn the basics first. Forex markets can grow complex as you invest more in the market.

More Posts from Economic Justice

Copyright © 2019 · Dick Price and Sharon Kyle · Log in