(MintPress) – While making his first public address since being accepted into the Ecuador embassy on the basis of political asylum, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange touched on a growing issue worldwide: The increased crackdown on whistleblowers.

It has been known for some time that being a whistleblower in the United States has been risky business over the last decade, as unprecedented crackdowns and mysterious circumstances have shrouded whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing by the government and international corporations such as British Petroleum (BP). The fate of Assange could also very well mean a similar fate for famed military whistleblower Bradley Manning.

As Assange stood on a small patio overlooking a group of supporters and media, he denounced the U.S.’ continued push to quash WikiLeaks’ efforts to release sensitive documents as it pertains to national security, foreign policy and diplomacy. The online publishing group has released millions of cables, most recently pertaining to private global intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor) and internal emails from Syrian political figures.

“The United States must renounce its witch hunt against WikiLeaks,” Assange demanded on Sunday. “The United States must dissolve its FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) investigation. The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.”

Expanding the reach

The U.S. has gained a powerful ally in the United Kingdom throughout Assange’s asylum tactics – another developed country that has seen whistleblower claims grow significantly. Shortly after Assange was accepted by Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, the U.K. threatened a raid on the Ecuadorian Embassy in London if the country did not hand over Assange for prosecution. Assange has expressed that he fears once England detains him, the country would willingly extradite him to the U.S. where authorities would punish him for his work with WikiLeaks.

The actions by the U.K. suggest that the country may be deviating from its whistleblower protections, much like the U.S. has since the turn of the century. Since President Barack Obama was elected into office, his administration has prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers than all former presidents combined, despite campaign promises that he would strengthen whistleblower protections. Obama campaigned on creating a culture that would allow whistleblowers to flag corruption or illegal practices without the worry of facing retaliation.

And recent efforts by the U.S. suggest that whistleblowers and journalists alike could become similar targets as it pertains to reporting on information that the government deems to be “confidential.” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently implemented an order to the Pentagon that would monitor news and media outlets for disclosure of classified information. But as journalist and activist Naomi Wolf points out, the U.S. is increasingly labeling documents as classified when they normally would not be.

“I’ve had conversations with legal representatives of people at Guantanamo who tell me that they can’t tell me how their clients have been tortured because it’s classified and they would get in trouble because of the way government is over-classifying information,” Wolf said in an interview with RT. “It’s not national security information, it’s the government classification as a way of protecting its own corruption and fraud.”

Since adopting whistleblower protections in 1999, the number of reprisal claims submitted by whistleblowers in the U.K. increased from 157 in 2000 to 1,761 in 2009. But actions taken against Assange indicate that Britain could have various motivations for detaining him. The U.K. could go ahead and extradite Assange to Sweden where he would face charges for alleged sex crimes, or he would be extradited to the U.S. and answer to claims of espionage and releasing classified information.

In an interview with MintPress, National Whistleblower Center (NWC) general counsel attorney David Colapinto said the treatment and charges of both Assange and subsequently Manning are a sign of the times of how national security intelligence and classified information are being handled today.

“Both cases represent a chilling effect of how the U.S. now handles cases involving whistleblowers, especially when it comes to those influencing what security information sees the light of day,” Colapinto said.

Despite the fate of Assange and what the organization calls a systematic crackdown on whistleblowers, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said the organization will continue to operate as normal until it can no longer do so feasibly, saying that the group’s objective has always been to expose “corruption, lies and secrecy.”

“It’s very hard. We’ve been starved of 95 per cent of our funds. Julian Assange is facing legal battles …” Hrafnsson said. “People supporting WikiLeaks have been harassed when they interview us, even U.S. citizens. So it is hard to predict. I believe that despite everything we will look back at the accomplishments of WikiLeaks, which are great.”

Potential precursor

Arguably the most well-known cable leak from WikiLeaks detailed American wartime tactics and logs from Iraq, including a video dubbed “Collateral Murder,” which depicts an American Blackhawk helicopter shooting at Iraqis in the streets. The cables received and released by WikiLeaks allegedly came from Bradley Manning, and Army private who worked in a classified information facility.

Wolf speculates that the cooperative efforts between the U.S. and the U.K. suggest that any capture of Assange would immediately result in his extradition to the U.S., dismissing that his sex crimes in Sweden are of any concern or priority. Alternately, a potential guilty verdict for Assange would inevitably mean a similar fate for Manning, as Assange and the WikiLeaks organization have backed Manning’s efforts. In his speech in Ecuador’s Embassy on Sunday, Assange called Manning “a hero and an example to all of us.”

“In an ideal world, obviously I believe in the rule of law, and in an ideal world he would go safely to Sweden, and the women who accused would have their day in court, and he would have his day in court, and justice would be impartial,” Wolf said. “I don’t think that’s what happening in his case. I think it’s a global manhunt to punish and silence a whistleblower publisher. Not a leaker, but a publisher, I want to stress this. Bradley Manning leaked the material, allegedly, and so he has to deal with whatever he has to deal with.”

Colapinto speculates that the Manning case will change how whistleblowers operate when disclosing information. He said that employers, especially government employers, now have sophisticated ways of monitoring online communication, making it more difficult for potential whistleblowers to cover their tracks. He also acknowledged “general anti-whistleblower” attitudes in government today.

“It’s not even limited to national security, like the Manning case may suggest,” Colapinto noted. “Someone within the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) could be tracked if they report to Congress or their Inspector General. It’s forcing them to report things in a more clandestine way.”