USA TODAY

After seven years of self-imposed exile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested on Thursday inside the embassy of Ecuador in London.

In defense of the press, WikiLeaks

By Patrick G. Eddington

British police, with the cooperation of the Ecuadorian government, arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday. He has already been convicted of jumping bail and on that count alone could face up to a year in prison. That charge is related to a rape investigation in Sweden, which was closed because Assange fled that country before he could be questioned in the matter. And he should be forced to answer those charges.

The Swedish case has been overshadowed by a not-so-secret grand jury indictment in America regarding WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of classified government documents — some of which detailed the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq, as well as acts of torture committed by U.S. forces.

Talker:I don't want Justice Brett Kavanaugh teaching at my alma mater

Ask your friends and family to sign-up for the Today's Talker newsletter

Assange's defenders claim that United States and United Kingdom government pressure on Ecuador led to Assange's previous grant of asylum being revoked. Those supporters, along with Assange and WikiLeaks, claim that their acts of "radical transparency" are legitimate exercises of free speech under international law. Many U.S. politicians have claimed that Assange and WikiLeaks are nothing more than either witless tools of foreign intelligence services (Russia's specifically) or active collaborators with the same.

In light of Attorney General William Barr's letter on special counsel Robert Mueller's report, which apparently clears President Donald Trump of collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential election, it would be wise not to take allegations of Assange or WikiLeaks' witting collusion with Russian intelligence at face value. And history tells us to be skeptical about federal allegations against people like Assange or groups like WikiLeaks.

In multiple episodes over the past 100 years, the FBI and Justice Department have asserted that a range of domestic actors — from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Quakers — were under the influence of or actively controlled by Soviet agents or other hostile powers. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans investigated by the FBI or the House Un-American Activities Committee were innocent and loyal. The multiple "Red scare" witch hunts spanning decades destroyed the reputations of innocent people or organizations, while government officials who made the allegations were never punished for bearing false witness against those they accused of treason.

Assange is not the most sympathetic of characters. If a man flees a country based on a credible rape allegation, he needs to answer that charge in a court of law. If a government alleges that a person or organization has conspired with a foreign power to undermine that nation's electoral process, it should have the integrity to make that case in public in a judicial proceeding. But if a government uses such an allegation simply as a pretext to try to silence a publisher of information — and that is what WikiLeaks is — it exposes potential or actual crimes by the government itself, and the government needs to be held to account first.

Every news organization in the free world should be terrified of an Assange prosecution under U.S. law.

In the case of Assange and WikiLeaks, the situation is reminiscent of the famous Pentagon Papers case of 1971. The Pentagon Papers, like the material Assange and WikiLeaks put into circulation, were classified. In both cases, the material revealed misconduct, mismanagement and even criminality by government officials. Federal officials want to make any case against Assange and WikiLeaks about the publication of classified material. The case should be about whether the government can use the classification system to conceal its own criminal conduct from the press and the public and to misuse the judicial process to silence those who exposed its misdeeds.

In the Pentagon Papers case, the Bill of Rights won. Whether it will win in any Assange prosecution remains to be seen.

Patrick G. Eddington, a former CIA analyst and House of Representatives senior staffer, is a policy analyst in civil liberties at the Cato Institute. You can follow him on Twitter: @PGEddington.

What others are saying

Timothy L. O'Brien, Bloomberg: "As a journalist and a citizen, I’m glad the information became part of a public discussion. To the extent that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks only received and distributed information that Chelsea Manning stole from government computers, I think that’s all fine and good. To the extent that Assange and WikiLeaks coached or assisted Manning in the theft, I think that’s bad. They took part in a crime and stopped being journalists. I may get in trouble in some quarters for saying this, but journalists stop being journalists when they help case the joint."

Jonathan Turley, USA TODAY: "The key to the prosecution of Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government launched an unprecedented surveillance program that scooped up the emails and communications of citizens without a warrant or probable cause. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program."

WikiLeaks, Twitter: "This man is a son, a father, a brother. He has won dozens of journalism awards. He (has) been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including (the) CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanize, delegitimize and imprison him. Protect Julian."

What our readers are saying

We are about to find out, once and for all, who the American mainstream news media serve: we the people or the security state. Free the press and free Julian Assange!

— Steve Justino

The measures Assange has taken to avoid being questioned about a rape seem very unusual for an innocent man. Why won't he give details about the crime he is trying to avoid?

— Chuck Flowers

Hallelujah! Assange is a treasonous conman and thief. So glad that he was arrested. I'm not sure what will happen though because he essentially helped President Donald Trump immensely during the 2016 election. In Trump world, a pardon is likely to happen.

— Cheryl Hawkins

Assange is the only human telling us the truth about the terrible things our government does. Sad day in the world when he was arrested.

— Joey Walker

To join the conversations about topics on USA TODAY or provide feedback to this newsletter, email jrivera@usatoday.com, comment on Facebook, or use #tellusatoday on Twitter.