The Intertwining Stories of Jullius Assange and Edward Snowden

The Intertwining Stories of Jullius Assange and Edward Snowden

The intertwined narratives of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden underscore the intricate interplay between individual rights, privacy, press freedom, government surveillance, national security, and the delicate equilibrium between government secrecy, transparency, and the public’s right to information.

Julian Assange, an Australian citizen and the founder of WikiLeaks, garnered notoriety for publishing classified information, becoming a prominent figure in exposing government secrets. He launched WikiLeaks in 2006, aiming to challenge Western power structures and advocate for human rights. However, portraying WikiLeaks, which disseminates stolen documents from numerous countries, as a conventional news organization and Assange as a legitimate journalist is highly contentious.

It can be argued that Assange’s crusade, along with his associates, to obtain and disclose extensive amounts of classified material from the U.S. and other governments, as well as private information from non-governmental entities and individuals, lacks legality and legitimacy.

Assange, amidst a convoluted journey, currently finds himself in a precarious state, both physically and mentally. Since April 2019, he has been confined in Belmarsh Prison in southeast London, awaiting extradition to the U.S. on charges of violating the 1917 Espionage Act, encompassing 17 counts related to obtaining or possessing classified national security information, and/or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which criminalizes unauthorized information access by hackers from any source, public or private.

The extradition proceedings for Assange have been contested in the British High Court. During a two-day hearing in February 2024, the court requested further assurances from American authorities regarding Assange’s First Amendment rights and assurances against the death penalty if extradited to the U.S. Failure to provide these assurances could lead to the continuation of the appeal against extradition.

Assange’s ordeal began in 2010 when Sweden issued a European arrest warrant for allegations of sexual assault. After losing his appeal against the warrant, he violated bail conditions and sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012, citing political persecution and fears of extradition to the U.S.

In May 2019 and June 2020, the U.S. government unsealed new indictments against Assange, charging him with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, stealing and publicly disclosing hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents provided by former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, and violating the Espionage Act of 1917. The indictments also alleged Assange’s conspiracy with hackers.

In April 2019, Assange’s asylum status was revoked by the Ecuadorian government under Lenin Moreno’s leadership, leading to his arrest by the Metropolitan Police for breaking bail conditions.

Assange’s extradition to the U.S., as decided by British Home Secretary Priti Patel in 2022, potentially carries a 175-year sentence for his role in disseminating classified information via WikiLeaks. The extradition is viewed by some as a vindictive act by successive U.S. administrations—Obama, Trump, and Biden—rather than a pursuit of justice. Meanwhile, Assange’s actions raise pressing issues concerning press freedom, government transparency, and the role of whistleblowers, especially considering his revelations regarding U.S. military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, which have been of significant public interest.

Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, ignited a global firestorm when he leaked classified documents, laying bare extensive surveillance programs and revealing the government’s widespread monitoring of citizens’ communications. Fleeing first to Hong Kong and later finding asylum in Moscow, Snowden’s actions brought to light the intricate balance between individual freedoms and national security imperatives.

The revelations stemming from Snowden’s disclosures have proven invaluable to the preservation of democracy, shedding light on the delicate equilibrium between personal liberties and concerns over state surveillance. However, the legal landscape surrounding these disclosures, particularly within the framework of the Espionage Act, reveals profound complexities. The very nature of this act, with its stringent limitations on the defence’s ability to argue the public interest of such disclosures, undermines the prospects of a fair trial for individuals accused under its provisions. This constraint fundamentally challenges the bedrock principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.

Snowden’s revelations have been of immense benefit to the international community, offering a glimpse into the inner workings of the NSA, an entity bent on omniscient surveillance, as Snowden conveyed to journalist Glenn Greenwald, “making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them.”

In its efforts to silence Snowden, the U.S. government contemplated charging him with antiquated espionage offenses reminiscent of those from the World War I era, a move that seemingly disregards the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, safeguarding against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The archaic espionage laws, rooted in the World War I era, fail to distinguish between disclosures harmful to the public good and those that serve its interests. Consequently, Snowden finds himself unable to mount a robust defence despite his revelations exposing the egregious overreach of surveillance by the NSA and other agencies, which undeniably fall into the category of “beneficial” disclosures.

Amidst the backdrop of escalating cyber-attacks and data breaches, the imperative of privacy preservation looms large. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that any data held by the government, no matter how ostensibly minimal or appropriate, remains safeguarded against unauthorized access.

A critical debate must be had regarding the imposition of limits on the pervasive surveillance apparatus that burgeoned in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. This discussion, long overdue, necessitates a re-evaluation of policies such as the Patriot Act. We owe a profound debt of gratitude to Edward Snowden, whose actions have laid bare the perils of unchecked surveillance under the auspices of dubious government policies.

Afterthought:

An act of genuine leadership and wisdom from the Biden Administration would be to facilitate a compromise that allows both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who have lived in exile after their respective leaks of confidential and sensitive information exposing alleged wrongdoing and surveillance by the US military and intelligence, to reintegrate into Australian and American society without fear or intimidation from the U.S. federal government. However, given the complexities involved, such a scenario may unfortunately be too optimistic to expect.

WJJH – 14.4.2024

Diatribe: The intertwined narratives of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden bring to light the delicate balance between individual rights, government secrecy, and public transparency. Assange’s challenges and Snowden’s revelations highlight the complexities surrounding freedom of the press, government surveillance, and the role of whistleblowers. These issues underscore the need for a re-evaluation of surveillance policies and protection of privacy.