This is not a case of investigative journalism - it’s one of illegally hacking US government systems (classified ones no less), which is what Assange is being sought for. If he was a journo, he would’ve simply used selective information to publish a case of wrongdoing instead of mass publish everything he had for the self aggrandizement of his brand. 99.9 percent of what he published was mundane nonsense of no use to anyone, but he released it anyway because he wanted to be the Robin Hood of information. Now it looks like he’s going to answer to the law.That is an absolutely mindless argument. All investigative journalists uncovering state level corruption or crime will rely upon classified information gained from whistleblowers' disclosures. It is why there are - in countries that at least want to project the image of a meaningful democracy - certain whistleblower protections and certain journalistic protections are in place, with journalists tasked with weighing the public's need to know.
With WL disclosures, published all over the mainstream press, there was an obvious case of the public's need to know.
Look at Daniel Ellsberg. He wasn't imprisoned, though they did want to go after him using that Espionage Act. No one will get a fair trial charged under the Espionage Act.
The smaller crime (disclosure of classified information) becomes fully justified when exposing a much bigger crime. There are plenty of instances where you may have to break the law to prevent or expose a bigger crime. That being said, in civilised societies there should already be legal protections in order to inform the public of what is being done in the name of the people.
In addition to the Manning case, they are probably also going to nail him for publishing GRU hacked DNC information in 2016 as well, where he attempted to ingratiate himself to the Trump campaign for a possible future pardon.
Last edited: