Assange as journalist: An inconvenient truth?

We must judge governments not on what they say but on what they do. Our government representatives are not prepared to describe Assange as a journalist or an online publisher, even though their opinions are just that rather than legal characterisations, and they're treading water on the secret indictment question, but various Freedom of Information requests have revealed that:

·        The Australian embassy in Washington knew of an “active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under U.S. law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act” and that the “WikiLeaks case was unprecedented both in its scale and nature”;

·        Australian diplomats have requested, “advanced warning of any public announcement of the results of US investigations or proposed actions”, but have raised no concerns about the Australian journalist being pursued by U.S. prosecutors on charges of espionage and conspiracy;

·        Washington provided Canberra with regular updates, including reporting on the issuing of subpoenas to compel WikiLeaks associates to appear before a grand jury in Virginia, and U.S. State Department efforts to access Twitter and other internet accounts; and

·        The Australian embassy has obtained “confidential or legal commentary“ from private law firms “on aspects surrounding WikiLeaks and/or the positions of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning.”

Washington embassy cables sent to Canberra between 1 November 2010 and 31 January 2012 do not contain any references to representations made by Australian diplomats to U.S. officials concerning proper extradition processes, even though Attorney-General Nicola Roxon assured us in April this year that they had been made. It appears that it was not until after Ms Roxon’s appearance on Q&A that she made representations to Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, U.S. Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and U.S. Deputy Attorney-General James Cole.

Similarly, the Australian government has confirmed that is has made representations to the Swedish government about due process being applied to Mr Assange, and that assurances to that effect have been given by the Swedish government. If they can tell us that, why can't they tell us exactly what questions were asked and what assurances were received?

The obvious inference is that the Australian Government understands how important it is for U.S. prosecutors that Assange remain outside the protection of First Amendment rights. Outside that he is marked for processing as a person with a specific criminal intent to injure the United States by recklessly disregarding the effect of the disclosures made, a person acting in bad faith, a person not committed to the traditional media functions but to the mass indiscriminate disclosure of sensitive. They need him to have those attributes so they can differentiate between WikiLeaks and other news outlets.

The Australian government must also be well aware that the Article VI of the Supplemental Treaty between the United States and Sweden gives the Swedish authorities the power to temporarily surrender Assange to the United States for the purpose of prosecution, so Swedish authorities could comply with the Australian Government’s request that they follow “due process” and still deliver the desired result.

What is clear is that no government wants the truth reported. They know the news is reported, so there are out there to ensure that what is reported is their news.

What does it mean for the Gillard Government?

It's possible that Assange’s request may not lead him to asylum. Ecuador might refuse it.