Julian Assange: Free-Speech Crusader or Threat to the West?

Social Media · June 26

For some, he is a hero of free speech and a crusader for truth, while for others, he is a reckless figure whose actions have endangered lives and compromised national security. Assange first gained prominence in 2006 when he founded WikiLeaks in Australia, aiming to create a platform where whistleblowers could anonymously share classified information with the public. His mission was to promote transparency and accountability, and over the years, WikiLeaks has published more than 10 million classified files. Among these were the explosive releases of US Army intelligence documents in 2010, which revealed previously unreported civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, and instances of torture by Iraqi forces.

Supporters of Assange, such as Matt Kennard, co-founder of Declassified UK, hail him as a champion of free speech. They argue that his work has exposed significant truths about government actions and military conduct, thereby serving the public interest. Notable revelations included a video showing a US military helicopter shooting civilians, including two Reuters journalists, which brought global attention to the realities of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jemima Goldsmith, a screenwriter and producer, emphasized the importance of WikiLeaks’ disclosures, arguing that the information revealed by Assange’s platform countered government lies and lack of accountability. Reporters Without Borders has also praised Assange for his role in uncovering war crimes and human rights abuses, viewing his potential release as a victory for press freedom.

However, Assange’s critics are equally vocal. John Demers, a former top US Justice Department national security official, has denounced Assange as irresponsible, accusing him of endangering the lives of confidential sources by publishing sensitive material without redaction. This sentiment was echoed by Mike Pence, former US Vice President, who asserted that Assange’s actions during wartime compromised the safety of US troops and national security.

Assange’s legal troubles began in 2010 when he was accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Fearing extradition to the US on espionage charges, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he remained for seven years. During this period, high-profile supporters, including filmmaker Ken Loach and journalist John Pilger, defended him, arguing that the charges were politically motivated attempts to silence a champion of free speech.

The US government’s case against Assange centers on the allegation that he recklessly published documents that exposed the identities of individuals working with the US military, thereby endangering their lives. Critics argue that Assange’s indiscriminate approach to releasing information showed a disregard for the consequences. For instance, the publication of diplomatic cables revealed the names of human rights activists and dissidents, potentially putting them at risk.

Former WikiLeaks employee James Ball, who worked closely with Assange, described the internal conflicts over the publication of sensitive information. While journalists wanted to redact potentially harmful details, Assange was determined to release all documents in full, regardless of the risks. This uncompromising stance further alienated some of his initial supporters.

The controversy intensified during the 2016 US presidential election when WikiLeaks released emails from the campaign of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, which had been hacked by Russian operatives. This led then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to label WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” supported by state actors like Russia.

As Assange now prepares to plead guilty to an Espionage Act charge of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defense information, opinions remain sharply divided. James Clapper, former US Director of National Intelligence, has suggested that Assange has “paid his dues,” while others, like Pence, vehemently oppose any plea deals, arguing that those who endanger national security should face the full extent of the law.

Ultimately, Assange’s legacy is likely to remain contentious. To his defenders, he is a vital figure who has challenged powerful institutions and fought for transparency. To his detractors, he is a reckless individual whose actions have posed serious risks. As he approaches freedom, the debate over whether he is a free-speech crusader or a threat to the West will undoubtedly continue.

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-27

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Tug · June 26

In my personal opinion he’s a traitor and a threat and should be delt with accordingly.i know it’s unpopular but I stand by my opinion

Skipalongcassidy · June 26

36 minutes ago, Tug said:

In my personal opinion he’s a traitor and a threat and should be delt with accordingly.i know it’s unpopular but I stand by my opinion

Not only unpopular but rather short sighted and closed minded... I say hooray for whistle blowers for having the fortitude to expose the bad actors and their corruption.

metisdead · June 26

A post with a derogatory slang comment toward Americans contravening our Community Standards has been removed.

thaibeachlovers · June 26

Do we unconditionally support the incompetent warmongering maniacs that run certain countries of the world, or do we want their crimes exposed for all to see?

Hmmmmmm.

Captain Monday · June 26

Taking a pleas bargain is common and sometimes the best choice, for both parties in this case. No US administration really wants the inevitable. That is this case going before the Supreme Court where their assertion would be challenged. That any journalism the government disagrees with is equivalent to “espionage” .

Assange is a journalist who did nothing wrong.

If anyone is guilty of ”putting service members in danger”first blame the civilian leadership in Washington who start useless wars for their own political purposes.

Edited June 26 by Captain Monday

Ralf001 · June 26

1 hour ago, Tug said:

In my personal opinion he’s a traitor and a threat and should be delt with accordingly.i know it’s unpopular but I stand by my opinion

Julian is not American.

Skipalongcassidy · June 26

21 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Julian is not American.

No... it turns out he is an outhouser

KhunLA · June 27

I'm in the "he is a hero of free speech and a crusader for truth" crowd.

Along with Manning & Snowden ... heroes in my thinking. Along with Assange, persecuted for exposing the truth.

Captain Monday · June 27

35 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I'm in the "he is a hero of free speech and a crusader for truth" crowd.

Along with Manning & Snowden ... heroes in my thinking. Along with Assange, persecuted for exposing the truth.

The Snowden case is different

and then he defected to Russia.

Last I saw of him on a web broadcast he still had that disgusting carbuncle on his neck

Don’t they have dermatologists in Moscow?

DaddyWarbucks · June 27

The answer to the OP's question is "both".

mfd101 · June 27

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=0296ea42-d69b-4ee2-a0f3-eadc31a931d0

I already posted this on another OP yesterday. A Times article. Worth reading.

Chomper Higgot · June 27

Toxic narcissist and Putin Operative is my take on this crook.

simple1 · June 27

6 hours ago, Tug said:

In my personal opinion he’s a traitor and a threat and should be delt with accordingly.i know it’s unpopular but I stand by my opinion

I concur when national defence / intelligence info is released to the Web, not if the reports relate to alleged War Crimes / Crimes Against Humanity. As I understand none to of reported crimes, released by Wikileaks, by US / Allied forces have been formally investigated.