While the revelation of an apparent indictment against Julian Assange sets an ominous precedent for news organizations, it also serves as a reminder of his group’s stark transformation.
Then, in 2010, WikiLeaks posted a graphic video depicting the killing of perhaps a dozen Iraqis, including two Reuters journalists, at the hands of the U.S. military. The video brought the organization acclaim from civil libertarians and transparency advocates, and infamy within the U.S. military and elsewhere. Soon after its release, WikiLeaks posted its largest-ever cache of leaked material: a set of diplomatic cables and Army documents, many of which concerned the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If WikiLeaks began as a mere internet curiosity when it was founded in 2006, within four years, national-security officials in the United States were publicly depicting it as a threat.
Now it looks as if the U.S. government is preparing its most direct action yet against Assange. On Thursday, an unrelated court filing referred to secret charges against Assange for unspecified crimes. Assange, who has been living in London’s Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden in connection with an unrelated, now-dropped investigation of rape allegations, had long voiced the fear that the U.S. would seek to charge and possibly extradite him if he ever left the compound.
{"uid":2,"hostPeerName":"https://www.theatlantic.com","initialGeometry":"{\"windowCoords_t\":0,\"windowCoords_r\":1280,\"windowCoords_b\":760,\"windowCoords_l\":0,\"frameCoords_t\":3503.333251953125,\"frameCoords_r\":300,\"frameCoords_b\":3753.333251953125,\"frameCoords_l\":0,\"styleZIndex\":\"auto\",\"allowedExpansion_t\":0,\"allowedExpansion_r\":542,\"allowedExpansion_b\":156,\"allowedExpansion_l\":0,\"xInView\":1,\"yInView\":1}","permissions":"{\"expandByOverlay\":false,\"expandByPush\":false,\"readCookie\":false,\"writeCookie\":false}","metadata":"{\"shared\":{\"sf_ver\":\"1-0-31\",\"ck_on\":1,\"flash_ver\":\"0\"}}","reportCreativeGeometry":false,"isDifferentSourceWindow":false,"goog_safeframe_hlt":{},"inFakeDecryptionExperiment":false}" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="300" height="250" data-is-safeframe="true" sandbox="allow-forms allow-pointer-lock allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" data-google-container-id="f" style="box-sizing: inherit;border-bottom-width: 0px;border-left-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-top-width:0px; vertical-align:bottom"> In the meantime, though, WikiLeaks has been accused of turning into something much worse than a mere purveyor of information, however uncomfortable—or even, some would argue, dangerous—for its subjects. For WikiLeaks’ role in releasing hacked emails stolen by Russian intelligence from the Democratic National Committee, then–CIA Director Mike Pompeo in 2017 declared it to be the agent of a “hostile intelligence service.”
In that case, too, it appeared that many of the documents released were authentic chronicles of real disputes within the DNC about the conduct of the 2016 primary contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Yet even true information can paint a distorted picture: The publication of a large volume of information detrimental to Clinton and not to Trump seemed to align with what the intelligence community identified as Russia’s intent to help Trump win.
Over the years, the common thread connecting WikiLeaks’ biggest stories, from Collateral Murder to the DNC leaks, is that even what’s billed as anodyne “transparency” is seldom neutral. The choice to publish anything of consequence will always have political effects. And mere “information” may be something less than the truth if it comes without context about who is wielding that information and to what end. Even a massive document dump never quite tells the full story.
It remains unclear whether the purported charges against Assange pertain to the cables’ release or to WikiLeaks’ role, witting or not, in Russian election meddling. But Hendler says that absent clear information about contacts Assange may have knowingly had with Russian intelligence, his organization is still fundamentally engaged in acts of publishing.
From the perspective of news organizations, treating that activity as a crime would set a frightening precedent.