In a world where truth is often entangled in the complexities of power and politics, the timeless words of George Orwell serve as a resolute guide: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
These words, uttered in the dystopian world of 1984, mirror the struggles of our own reality, where the fault-lines between press freedom and the protection of whistleblowers, and government secrecy.
In present times, nowhere do these fault-lines become more apparent than in the case of Julian Assange. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is currently fighting his case in the United Kingdom against his extradition to the United States where he faces charges under the Espionage Act and risks up to 175 years in prison for exposing war crimes committed in the name of War on Terror.
The classified documents and videos that Assange’s WikiLeaks published provided insight into the actions of the United States military and other governments in these conflict zones, exposing the horrible abuses that were committed by these armies against civilians. The publication of the Collateral Murder video by WikiLeaks exposed the unseen reality of the war for the first time. The video showed how the US air crew in Apache helicopters callously killed people, while laughing, as if it were a video game. In this shocking incident that took place in July 2007, a dozen people, including two Reuters news agency journalists, were tragically murdered.
The horrors did not end with the initial attack on unarmed civilians, the firing extended upon a van that attempted to aid the wounded, resulting in injuries to two children who were inside the vehicle. Reuters' persistent efforts to obtain the video through a Freedom of Information Act request were met with resistance, as the truth was concealed for three long years. The US military's initial deceitful claims, stating that all the victims were insurgents and that the helicopters responded to an active firefight, were also later proven to be untrue.
The Guantanamo Bay pictures published by WikiLeaks also brought to light the horrible abuse which was inflicted on the inmates of the prison, further shaking the world's conscience. These disturbing revelations shed light on the appalling treatment endured by detainees, exposing the cruel and inhumane practices carried out by a regime that claimed to be fighting terrorism.
UN experts have condemned the facility and have said, “Guantanamo Bay is a site of unparalleled notoriety, defined by the systematic use of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against hundreds of men brought to the site and deprived of their most fundamental rights.” They have called its continued operation “a stain on the US Government’s commitment to the rule of law”.
By fearlessly uncovering and disseminating these classified materials, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks acted as catalysts for truth, shining a piercing light on the darker aspects of these conflicts and challenging the prevailing narratives of the War on Terror. The US responded by claiming that the publications by WikiLeaks harmed the ‘national security’, a claim often employed by powerful regimes to suppress brave journalism.
A free press is the backbone of democracy, justice, and human rights in a society. Allowing national security to be used as a tool to undermine free press will erode the foundations of democracy, hinder the pursuit of justice, and threaten the protection of human rights worldwide. As Alan Rusbridger, former editor of the Guardian newspaper for almost two decades, has wisely written: "Whenever you read about journalists harming national security, massive alarm bells should start ringing."
A free press plays a crucial role in holding those in power accountable, shedding light on important issues, and enabling informed decision-making for citizens. When national security is exploited to suppress journalism, it not only silences dissenting voices but also deprives the public of essential information needed to safeguard themselves from abuse of power.
Julian Assange’s case is not the first time the world is witnessing such a pivotal case of classified documents being published exposing war crimes of the US and national security being used as an excuse to silence and punish those behind exposing the truth. Decades before the Assange case captured international attention, there was Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War, and the Pentagon Papers.
In the early 1970s, Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers to the public. This top-secret government report contained a comprehensive account of the US involvement in Vietnam from the 1940s to the late 1960s.
Ellsberg, as military analyst, was involved in studying the Vietnam War. Working within the government, he witnessed the troubling realities of the conflict and grew increasingly disheartened by the actions and decisions made by those in power. Motivated by a sense of duty to the truth and the desire to shed light on the government's deceptive practices, he decided to leak the highly classified Pentagon Papers to the public. This courageous act exposed the true nature of the US government's involvement in the war, revealing a pattern of deceit and misinformation that had been concealed from the American people.
Ellsberg's motive was clear: he believed the American people deserved to know the truth about the Vietnam War and the government's decision-making processes. By leaking the Pentagon Papers, he hoped to provoke a critical examination of government actions and contribute to ending the war. However, he faced severe consequences, with the government bringing criminal charges against him under the Espionage Act and resorting to covert and illegal actions to discredit him. From wiretapping Ellsberg to breaking into his psychiatrist's office, the Nixon administration did everything to obtain information that could be used to discredit Ellsberg and undermine his credibility.
The New York Times and The Washington Post, which published excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, also faced pressure and legal challenges from the government, claiming the publication posed a threat to national security. The case escalated to the Supreme Court, where the newspapers fought to defend their right to freedom of the press. In a landmark ruling in 1971, the Court upheld their right to publish, emphasising the crucial role of a free press in informing the public and holding the government accountable. The Supreme Court's decision was a triumph for press freedom, recognising the necessity of a free press as a check on the government's actions, even when dealing with sensitive national security information. The ruling reinforced the principle that an informed citizenry is vital to a thriving democracy.
However, today it seems that this resounding victory has been lost in the pages of the history books. The principles of press freedom are today again under attack by the governments of the ‘Free World’. Today, by undermining principles of freedom of press that uphold democracy, justice and freedom in a society, terrible precedents are being set for authoritarian regimes to follow. Authoritarian regimes are now closely observing and learning how to weaponise the law to target journalists, whistleblowers, and news publications.
Today, legal battle of Assange raises many moral questions. We must ponder, if Jamal Khashoggi’s murder was carried out under a law (call it Butchering Act) that allows murders of journalists who dare to report on matters that powerful leaders would much rather like to remain in the dark, would such a murder ever be justifiable? If not in that case then how can today we pretend to overlook the weaponisation of law against a journalist that exposed the worst of war crimes of the recent times?
Assange’s defeat will give a license to all authoritarian regimes to persecute journalists in their own jurisdictions. Legal tools will be granted to the powerful to silence the truth. The global impact of Assange’s persecution cannot be underestimated. When democratic nations fail to protect press freedom within their own borders, it weakens the moral authority of the free world and emboldens authoritarian regimes to further restrict and oppress independent journalism within their territories. The actions of democratic governments that punish journalists send a message that freedom of the press is expendable when it conflicts with the interests of those in power.
Assange's case is not merely an American concern; it is a call for global citizenry to stand in solidarity. Defending his right to freedom of the press and fair treatment is a collective responsibility. For a fairer, just world, we must today stand together for Assange.
These words, uttered in the dystopian world of 1984, mirror the struggles of our own reality, where the fault-lines between press freedom and the protection of whistleblowers, and government secrecy.
In present times, nowhere do these fault-lines become more apparent than in the case of Julian Assange. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is currently fighting his case in the United Kingdom against his extradition to the United States where he faces charges under the Espionage Act and risks up to 175 years in prison for exposing war crimes committed in the name of War on Terror.
The classified documents and videos that Assange’s WikiLeaks published provided insight into the actions of the United States military and other governments in these conflict zones, exposing the horrible abuses that were committed by these armies against civilians. The publication of the Collateral Murder video by WikiLeaks exposed the unseen reality of the war for the first time. The video showed how the US air crew in Apache helicopters callously killed people, while laughing, as if it were a video game. In this shocking incident that took place in July 2007, a dozen people, including two Reuters news agency journalists, were tragically murdered.
The horrors did not end with the initial attack on unarmed civilians, the firing extended upon a van that attempted to aid the wounded, resulting in injuries to two children who were inside the vehicle. Reuters' persistent efforts to obtain the video through a Freedom of Information Act request were met with resistance, as the truth was concealed for three long years. The US military's initial deceitful claims, stating that all the victims were insurgents and that the helicopters responded to an active firefight, were also later proven to be untrue.
The Guantanamo Bay pictures published by WikiLeaks also brought to light the horrible abuse which was inflicted on the inmates of the prison, further shaking the world's conscience. These disturbing revelations shed light on the appalling treatment endured by detainees, exposing the cruel and inhumane practices carried out by a regime that claimed to be fighting terrorism.
As Alan Rusbridger, former editor of the Guardian newspaper for almost two decades, has wisely written: "Whenever you read about journalists harming national security, massive alarm bells should start ringing."
UN experts have condemned the facility and have said, “Guantanamo Bay is a site of unparalleled notoriety, defined by the systematic use of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against hundreds of men brought to the site and deprived of their most fundamental rights.” They have called its continued operation “a stain on the US Government’s commitment to the rule of law”.
By fearlessly uncovering and disseminating these classified materials, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks acted as catalysts for truth, shining a piercing light on the darker aspects of these conflicts and challenging the prevailing narratives of the War on Terror. The US responded by claiming that the publications by WikiLeaks harmed the ‘national security’, a claim often employed by powerful regimes to suppress brave journalism.
A free press is the backbone of democracy, justice, and human rights in a society. Allowing national security to be used as a tool to undermine free press will erode the foundations of democracy, hinder the pursuit of justice, and threaten the protection of human rights worldwide. As Alan Rusbridger, former editor of the Guardian newspaper for almost two decades, has wisely written: "Whenever you read about journalists harming national security, massive alarm bells should start ringing."
A free press plays a crucial role in holding those in power accountable, shedding light on important issues, and enabling informed decision-making for citizens. When national security is exploited to suppress journalism, it not only silences dissenting voices but also deprives the public of essential information needed to safeguard themselves from abuse of power.
Julian Assange’s case is not the first time the world is witnessing such a pivotal case of classified documents being published exposing war crimes of the US and national security being used as an excuse to silence and punish those behind exposing the truth. Decades before the Assange case captured international attention, there was Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War, and the Pentagon Papers.
In the early 1970s, Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers to the public. This top-secret government report contained a comprehensive account of the US involvement in Vietnam from the 1940s to the late 1960s.
Ellsberg, as military analyst, was involved in studying the Vietnam War. Working within the government, he witnessed the troubling realities of the conflict and grew increasingly disheartened by the actions and decisions made by those in power. Motivated by a sense of duty to the truth and the desire to shed light on the government's deceptive practices, he decided to leak the highly classified Pentagon Papers to the public. This courageous act exposed the true nature of the US government's involvement in the war, revealing a pattern of deceit and misinformation that had been concealed from the American people.
Ellsberg's motive was clear: he believed the American people deserved to know the truth about the Vietnam War and the government's decision-making processes. By leaking the Pentagon Papers, he hoped to provoke a critical examination of government actions and contribute to ending the war. However, he faced severe consequences, with the government bringing criminal charges against him under the Espionage Act and resorting to covert and illegal actions to discredit him. From wiretapping Ellsberg to breaking into his psychiatrist's office, the Nixon administration did everything to obtain information that could be used to discredit Ellsberg and undermine his credibility.
Assange’s defeat will give a license to all authoritarian regimes to persecute journalists in their own jurisdictions. Legal tools will be granted to the powerful to silence the truth. The global impact of Assange’s persecution cannot be underestimated.
The New York Times and The Washington Post, which published excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, also faced pressure and legal challenges from the government, claiming the publication posed a threat to national security. The case escalated to the Supreme Court, where the newspapers fought to defend their right to freedom of the press. In a landmark ruling in 1971, the Court upheld their right to publish, emphasising the crucial role of a free press in informing the public and holding the government accountable. The Supreme Court's decision was a triumph for press freedom, recognising the necessity of a free press as a check on the government's actions, even when dealing with sensitive national security information. The ruling reinforced the principle that an informed citizenry is vital to a thriving democracy.
However, today it seems that this resounding victory has been lost in the pages of the history books. The principles of press freedom are today again under attack by the governments of the ‘Free World’. Today, by undermining principles of freedom of press that uphold democracy, justice and freedom in a society, terrible precedents are being set for authoritarian regimes to follow. Authoritarian regimes are now closely observing and learning how to weaponise the law to target journalists, whistleblowers, and news publications.
Today, legal battle of Assange raises many moral questions. We must ponder, if Jamal Khashoggi’s murder was carried out under a law (call it Butchering Act) that allows murders of journalists who dare to report on matters that powerful leaders would much rather like to remain in the dark, would such a murder ever be justifiable? If not in that case then how can today we pretend to overlook the weaponisation of law against a journalist that exposed the worst of war crimes of the recent times?
Assange’s defeat will give a license to all authoritarian regimes to persecute journalists in their own jurisdictions. Legal tools will be granted to the powerful to silence the truth. The global impact of Assange’s persecution cannot be underestimated. When democratic nations fail to protect press freedom within their own borders, it weakens the moral authority of the free world and emboldens authoritarian regimes to further restrict and oppress independent journalism within their territories. The actions of democratic governments that punish journalists send a message that freedom of the press is expendable when it conflicts with the interests of those in power.
Assange's case is not merely an American concern; it is a call for global citizenry to stand in solidarity. Defending his right to freedom of the press and fair treatment is a collective responsibility. For a fairer, just world, we must today stand together for Assange.