Since the arrest of Julian Assange on April 11, 2019, the conversation of both himself and WikiLeaks has once again gone viral all over the internet, alongside mixed reactions to the arrest and the organization at hand. The discussion surrounding the legitimacy of the journalism put forth by Assange and WikiLeaks had also, once again, been propelled into question. Is the discovering and publishing of war crimes and other top-secret state documents journalism or a violation of national law? Depending on where people stand in regards to Assange, the result can very much be one way or the other. However, the argument presented here will dive deep into how and why the publication of such classified government documents is indeed journalism and how it should be defended at all costs. Before delving into the reasoning behind this, it is essential to understand some of the information released by them in the first place.

Still image from the leaked video moments before the firing at innocent civilians (https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/)

In 2010, WikiLeaks unveiled many human rights atrocities surrounding the United States and their foreign policy around the world. In particular, the downplaying of civilian deaths, lying to the public, and the fueling of conflict in unstable regions are the most prevalent notions shown and demonstrated. Perhaps the most recalled leak is the 17-minute video shown from an attack helicopter in which two American soldiers shot at Iraqi civilians and two Iraqi Reuters journalists. The soldiers can also be heard discussing the continuation of the shooting even after hitting the majority of the civilians seen on video.

Going beyond this single video, WikiLeaks has also published logs behind the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan from the early 2000s. These logs raised several different concerns that were previously unknown to the public, including but not limited to the deaths of many civilians, evidence of torture, and more. On a more state-centric level, some specific documents revealed by the organization outlined the pressuring of other countries to collaborate with the United States and keep quiet on certain issues that would most certainly gain mass media attention if revealed. Such collaborations include the pressure put on Germany not to prosecute and go after 13 suspected CIA agents who were believed to be behind the abduction of Khaled El-Masri in 2003. In regards to the future of El-Masri, further reports include the notion of torture, forced relocation, and more. While wrongfully detained, El-Masri suffered repeated beatings, interrogations, and a constant violation of his fundamental human rights.

The information stated above (all dated in 2010) serves as a background to the present-day discussion surrounding the legitimacy of Assange and WikiLeaks’ journalism and whether or not it should be deemed as such. The argument against WikiLeaks and in particular, their journalism, stems from the idea that the releasing of top-secret classified documents can thwart attempts to protect national security and the governmental agencies of the United States. Meghan McCain (daughter of the late John McCain), an outspoken critic and hostile individual towards Assange has said “I hope he rots in hell” citing the publishing of documents that supposedly puts the national security of the United States at risk in regards to enemy state actors and terrorist organizations.

The argument of protecting national security fails to address two crucial points:

The culmination in the abandonment of international human rights and solving issues within government that are merely classified as top-secret and confidential; The setting of a core limitation on journalism and free press by restricting the access and rights of investigative journalists who obtain information through various sources.

Journalism has little to nothing to do with the legality of the information published in a given country, rather having everything to do with getting valuable information to the public, especially in times of crisis or conflict. WikiLeaks is an organization that prides itself on “the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption” and through the leaked information, this is very evident. By focusing on the argument of protecting national security, the arguments in support of revealing war crimes and human rights abuses get swept under the rug in the name of the former.

Assange after the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that Assange was being arbitrarily detained (https://www.thenation.com/article/its-been-two-weeks-un-panel-declared-julian-assange-should-be-freed/)

The organization faces a lot of criticism in regards to their legality as a result of publishing classified documents. However, this is subjective since the laws within the United States that prohibit the publishing and retention of such documents are not laws set in nature. Therefore, the legal argument is not one of an objective nature, especially if you feel that the law(s) in question is unjust. Civil disobedience has been used as a tactic to change the law in the past, so what makes the act of whistleblowing any different? On the theme of legal basis, the organization can also defend itself as per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as many supporters do), which protects “freedom of expression from government interference”. The legality of WikiLeaks holds based on a constitutional argument and accordingly, should not be subject to any interference by the United States government for their publications.

Protecting freedom of the press is an important and just cause within society to ensure the delivering of essential information to the public eye. WikiLeaks has done precisely that, by exposing unjust activities by states and corporations as mentioned earlier. It is uncertain as to what will occur to Julian Assange in the future, as he faces extradition to the United States for his collaboration with intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. He is currently incarcerated at the Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom for 50 weeks as a result of breaching bail conditions, a sentence that many have deemed unjust for Assange.