WikiLeaks Indictment is a crossfire of conditionals --- In their own words the Wikileaks website describes its mission as : “principled leaking,” as necessary to fight government, individual and corporate corruption.

If there was ‘damage’ done in the Wikileaks publications it was a reputational damage to the institutions associated with the conduct of illegal wars. It is debatable how much reputational damages was incurred by institutions that misled the public in the conduct of international geopolitics.

Factually, there has been no evidence of any individua suffering physical harm either in the present case nor in any past WikiLeaks publications. Even the FBI formal accusation takes no issue with the actual language or words of the publication.

There FBI formal accusation (indictment) is “a crossfire of conditionals.” The language of the formal accusation is worth close study. There are no documents introduced to show malice or wrongdoing. It is comparable to the release of the Pentagon Papers which exposed the illegal wars in Indochina.

The Wikileaks formal accusation and case asserts no witness testimony. The unfavorable media asserts that confidential sources have been harmed but there is no evidence of that claim in the indictment.

From the perspective of an uninformed public the Wikileaks information and images released are verifiably true; and there has been no denial with respect to the content.

The information disclosed was essential for a public to form an opinion on the conduct of its government. Presumably the US remains a constitutional law country; as Lincoln declared in his Gettysburg address it is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.’

Significant is the fact that WikiLeaks was not the only organization that published this information. The UK Guardian and Germany’s Der Spiegel also published this same information without consequence.

Truth is its own defense is a long-standing principle of jurisprudence. As much as Assange may not be characterized as a journalist and publisher, the thrust of the declaration of facts is to accuse him of conspiring to commit espionage.

The charge is not even that Assange hacked a US Government computer and obtained classified information. The charge is that he may have discussed it with Chelsea Manning and may have had the intention to go for a hack. George Orwell’s presence regarding a “thought crime” is the essential charge of the indictment.

Source author: John D. Hipsley jhipsley@igc.org