Jail, Julian Assange and the Future of Watchdog Journalism

There is one thing in life we all know for sure: death. Yet for Julian Assange, there’s a second. Persecution. Julian Assange is an Australian national and world renowned watchdog journalist. The winner of almost 20 awards, Assange has been honored by publications and organization such as The Economist, Time Magazine, and the People’s Choice Awards. His work in exposing wrongdoing can be compared to few. But the United States has silenced Assange. While Assange lays dying in a London jail, US prosecutors baselessly attempt to extradite him to charge him with crimes under a law intended for government employees. The persecution and prosecution of Assange should scare everyone. Journalists are needed in this world. Journalists expose wrongdoing. They call out corruption. But the United States has now begun an attempt to silence the truth. This is Jail, Julian Assange and the Future of Watchdog Journalism.

Episode Transcript

Unknown (00:00):
There is one thing in life we all know for sure. Death
yet for Julian Assange. That's asecond persecution. Julian
Assange is an Australiannational and world renowned
watchdog journalists, the winnerof almost 20 Awards. Assange has

(00:20):
been honored by publications andorganizations such as the
economist, Time Magazine, andthe People's Choice Awards. His
work in exposing wrongdoing canbe compared to few. But the
United States has sounds as suchby the sun's rays dying in a
London jail. Us prosecutorsbaselessly attempt to extradite

(00:45):
him to charge him with crimesunder a law intended for
government employees. Theprosecution and prosecution of
Assange just scared scareanyone. Journalists are needed
in this world. Journalistsexpose wrongdoing. They call it
out corruption.
But the United States has nowbegun to attempt to silence the

(01:09):
truth.
This is jail, Julian Assange andthe future of watchdog
journalism.

(01:29):
Hello, everyone, my name is JoeMaronski. And you are listening
to the political informant. SoI'm coming to you today with a
little bit of a differentepisode than usual. Recently, I
had the opportunity to presentmy research titled jail, Julian
Assange and the future ofwatchdog journalism at the
National Conference onundergraduate research. United

(01:50):
States first, Julian Assange isa very complex case, things are
changing daily, there stillextradition trials going on in
London. But it's one of thosecases that has the potential to
change journalism as we know it.
You know, as a journalist, Idon't use the terms
unprecedented and potential tochange the world lightly. You

(02:12):
know, few things fall under bothof those categories. But this
case is definitely one of them.
And it's something everybodyshould be aware of. So we're
going to talk a little bit aboutit, go through some of the stuff
and hopefully by the end of thisepisode, you have a better
understanding of this case, andare as passionate about

(02:34):
following this case as I am.
Before we can get into thingsand really understand this case,
there are some terms that I dohave to define for you. So it
makes sense as we go along. Sowhat is a significant activity
report? These are reports thatare often filed early after an
event happens, mainly in war tolog what happened and can be

(02:57):
something like a kidnapping, abombing, a shooting, but it's
really something just so thatthere's a record of any event
that happens, detaineeassessment briefs or briefs that
are filed by commanders, andthey outline whether prisoners
should be held or released andranks their threat to the United
States and its allies.
Guantanamo Bay is a camp thatwas established by President
George W. Bush in 2002, duringthe height of the war on terror,

(03:21):
and it holds prisoners suspectedas high threats to the United
States and many courtproceedings. This is referred to
as get mo or GTM.
And lastly, watchdog journalism,this is my favorite thing in the
world. If we're being completelyhonest, it's exposing government
wrongdoing, wrongdoing incompanies, through the

(03:43):
interviews of public figures,gathering evidence, and overall
increases accountability.
watchdog journalism has a veryrich history dating back to the
18th century. Ida Tarbellexposing the wrongdoings of the
Standard Oil Company, and much,much more from there. But this
is one of the most protectedforms of journalism as it is so
important to the functionings ofour society.

(04:11):
So now that we've defined thoseterms, we can really get into
this case. So let's start with asimple question. Who is Julian
Assange? Quite frankly, a lot ofpeople don't know who this man
is. It's just a name. And theycould not tell you who he is.
But when you hear the company heruns, I can assure you, you will
know Julian Assange has been thepublic face and editor in chief

(04:32):
of Wikileaks since at least2007. He's responsible for
responsible for exposing warcrimes and government abuses
across the world. And his mostwell known piece is something by
the name of Collateral Murder.
Now, it's not necessarily wellknown to your average citizen,
but to anti war groups, and manyjournalists, this is really what
put him on the radar and it alsoput them on the radar of the

(04:55):
United States government in thispiece, which I should know
It is extremely hard to watch,you can find it online. But it
is very hard to watch. It'sfootage from a United States
helicopter. And essentially,they claim that somebody is
holding an RPG, and they shootdown an entire crowd of people
standing on the street. It waslater found out that these were

(05:17):
medics of reporter for routers,and just citizens. And what they
said was an RPG was actually acamera on the man shoulder. They
then fly away and laugh aboutit. And it really was one of
those things that, like I said,Put Assange on the radar of the
United States government. He'salso responsible for the leaks
of Hillary Clinton's emails in2016. And that is important to

(05:40):
note, we'll get into that alittle bit later. But more
important to remember is that heis an Australian citizen. You'll
understand a little bit why thisis important. But Julian Assange
was born and raised inAustralia. He's not a United
States citizen. So what got usto where we are now? Well,
Assange worked closely withsomebody by the name of Chelsea

(06:01):
Manning, then Brady Manning togain access to Army
Intelligence. Manning was anarmy intelligence analyst in
Iraq. And they communicated viajabber, which was a secure
encrypted communicationsplatform where they could talk.
Through this, Assange was ableto get access to approximately
90,000. Afghanistan war relatedsignificant activity reports.

(06:24):
Approximately 400,000 iraq warrelated significant activity
reports, approximately 800,Guantanamo Bay detainee
assessment briefs andapproximately 250,000, US
Department of State cables, thisdid not happen overnight. This
took time and they didcommunicate for months on end,

(06:46):
Chelsea Manning did have a topsecret security clearance, which
is higher than a secret securityclearance. And it's important to
note that most, if not 95% ofthe documents that Manning
provided Assange were classifiedas secret pursuant of President
Obama's executive order number135 to six, but like I said, top

(07:07):
secret is greater than clearancethan secret clearance and
therefore, Manning did haveaccess to these documents. So
under the Obama administrationand investigation did begin into
this leak, you know, Assange hadleaked these documents, where
did he get them? What happened?
And how did all of thisinformation get out? Eventually,
they did find out, Manning wasprosecuted. And under the Obama

(07:31):
administration, theinvestigation against Assange
was halted due to theimplications of prosecuting a
foreign journalist. But in 2016,the Trump administration reopen
this investigation. and formerCIA director Mike Pompeo is
quoted as saying, quote, we haveto recognize that we can no
longer allow Assange and hiscolleagues the latitude to use

(07:53):
free speech values against usand quote, during the initial
investigation, Assange tookrefuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London. And he was there forover seven years, he had a case
ongoing in Sweden, where therewere rape allegations against
him. That case was eventuallydropped due to lack of evidence,

(08:14):
and the story could not becorroborated. But eventually a
new administration came intoEcuador, and he was forced out
of the embassy. There's videosonline of this, you can look up,
it's a little crazy to watch.

(08:34):
Assange would not walk out ofthe embassy, and in fact was
carried out by the Royal policerefusing to leave on his own
free will. While he was inrefuge. However, the CIA and
other intelligence ag agenciesspied on him and there's footage
of him doing basic tasks usingthe bathroom working out riding

(08:56):
a skateboard, you know, like Isaid, he could not leave this,
this embassy. He was locked infor over seven years. So he
found ways which might be weirdto some of us skateboarding
inside, but you know, he had todo something. But it's also
important to know what some ofthe things that they spied on
were conversations betweenAssange and his lawyer, which,

(09:19):
regardless of where this tookplace, the spying if we want to
try him in the United States,none of that can be used as
evidence, because it's obviouslya breach of his fifth amendment
rights. Upon being forced out hewas arrested and has remained in
prison at HMP Belmarsh eversince hlp. Belmarsh is

(09:42):
essentially the most secureprison in London. So let's break
down the indictment a littlebit. He has been charged with
eight team crimes under theEspionage Act of 1917. He's been
charged with one count ofconspiracy to access a computer
without information withoutauthorization and access
ceding authorized access toobtain classified National

(10:02):
Defense Information, one countof conspiracy to obtain and
disclose National DefenseInformation, one count of
conspiracy to commit computerintrusions, six counts of
obtaining National DefenseInformation and nine counts of
disclosure of National DefenseInformation all under the
Espionage Act of 1917.

(10:25):
So like I said, Assange has beencharged under the Espionage Act
of 1917. But what is theEspionage Act of 1917? Well,
this was designed to preventgovernment employees from
sharing national securityinformation. It was written
during world war one and the RedScare, which was of course, when
there was the fear of communismthroughout the United States.

(10:46):
The counterpart to this was theSedition Act of 1918. And it
extended the penalties under theEspionage Act to private
citizens. However, Congressrepealed this in 1920, over
fears of the First Amendmenteffect is it hat. So currently,
Assange is locked in a maximumsecurity prison in London in
total isolation. His doctor hasstated he will not live much

(11:09):
longer due to the isolation andconditions. But the United
States is currently attemptingto extradite Assange to face
trial. A London judge, thoughissued a 132 page ruling denying
the request. And there's there'sone quote in there that really
stands out, and it says, quote,faced with the conditions of

(11:29):
near total isolation, withoutthe protective factors, which
limited his risk at HMP BelmarshI am satisfied the procedures
described by the US will notprevent Mr. Assange from finding
a way to commit suicide. And forthis reason, I have decided
extradition would be oppressiveby reason of mental harm, and,
quote, the United States is nowappealing this decision and the

(11:51):
judge ordered Assad remains inprison until the appeals were
finished, rightfully so. I mean,he did seek refuge in the
Ecuadorian embassy for sevenyears. You know, nobody could
get to him just just a littlebit of time. But obviously, he
does have to remain in custodydue to being a flight risk. But
things are changing. You know,as I said, this is being
appealed. charges are stillbeing pursued. Many people

(12:12):
thought President Trump wouldpardon Assange. He didn't, many
people thought President Bidenwould end the investigation. He
didn't. This is all an ongoingmatter, and very complex, but
Assange does have a couple ofdefense avenues that are
somewhat promising in allhonesty. So like I mentioned

(12:34):
before Chelsea Manning wasconvicted. Manning was convicted
of 17 of the 22 counts she wascharged with in July of 2013,
and sentenced to 35 years inprison. However, this sentence
was commuted by President Obama,and Manning was released in
2017. Manning was charged underthe Espionage Act of 1917.

(12:55):
Manning was a governmentemployee. That makes sense, but
Assange is not a US citizen or agovernment employee. So how can
he be charged under an actdesigned to prosecute a US
citizen? Who is a governmentemployee when he fits under
neither of those categories? Ifthat doesn't work as a defense

(13:15):
Avenue, there's plenty caseprecedent. New York Times The
United States is also referredto as the Pentagon Papers case.
And it essentially stated thatjournalists can't be punished
for publishing information thatthey did not retrieve. So
regardless of if this isclassified information
illegally, intercepted collectinformation. If the journalist

(13:38):
didn't get it, how can they bepublished for it? This is a case
where essentially, you know, theUnited States tried to prevent
the publication of these papers.
And it's important to note,though, that the court didn't
necessarily say, in the future,you can't stop a journalist from
publishing anything. The courtjust said, in this particular

(14:00):
instance, you did not give ussufficient evidence that this,
this is not something that canbe published and justice Hugo
back black, said something veryimportant. He essentially stated
that, you know, the governmentis asking the courts to say that
in the name of nationalsecurity, the First Amendment

(14:22):
doesn't apply. But there's nodefinition of national security.
That's a very vague term alwayshas been. But how can the court
decide what national securitymeans? and national security
can't just be used when it'sconvenient. So, yes, there's
case precedent in that sense,but it's not a firm case

(14:43):
precedent. There's also the caseof Bert Nikki Viper, which was a
2001 civil case and essentiallya radio host aired and illegally
recorded phone call. But thecourt said that, quote, the
First Amendment protects thedisclosure of illegally
intercepted communications byparties who did not work.
is made in the illegalinterception and quote now,

(15:03):
that's, again, kind of a doubleedged sword. Yeah, Assange
technically didn't get theinformation. However, Assange
coerced Manning to give him theinformation, the counter to
that. That's what all goodjournalists do, especially
watchdog journalists, your jobis to coerce and coax sources to

(15:25):
trust you and provide you withinformation. So technically,
Assange did what his job is. Andlastly, if none of those
defenses work, there's one moremens rea. Now, this is guilty
mine or intent. When chargeswere brought against two
employees of the American IsraelPublic Affairs Committee, and

(15:45):
eventually dropped, the courtstated that the prosecution must
prove intent to harm the UnitedStates and its security.
Why is this important? Well,Assange as a watchdog
journalist, and has said, sincethe beginning, his intent was
never to harm the United States,any military officers, or

(16:06):
national security it was simplyto expose wrongdoing so people
could see it.
So as I said, complex case, hasthe potential to change
journalism as we know it. Butlet's dive into the implications
of a conviction. Well, first ofall, there's less

(16:27):
accountability, journalists willnow be able to be prosecuted
prosecuted using the termnational security, therefore
decreasing governmentaccountability. Now, this
doesn't mean the government'sgoing to prosecute every single
journalist who does somethingthey don't like. But it does
create case precedent that couldbe used in the future. It also

(16:50):
devalues the First Amendment,the court is now forced to
determine when the FirstAmendment should and shouldn't
be applied. And when nationalsecurity means that the First
Amendment essentially is nulland void. And this is very
dangerous, you know, the FirstAmendment protects speech,
religion, assembly, the press,just because we're saying, hey,

(17:15):
you can't publish that, in thename of national security,
speech, protest, assembly,religion all technically fall
under the same category. So thatcreates case precedent to say,
hey, what you did or what yousaid, or what your religion
believes, you know, nationalsecurity, and that's very

(17:38):
dangerous. It that's roughwaters, that doesn't again,
doesn't mean that they will, butit just opens the door. It also
opens the door for prosecutionof journalists, journalists and
other public figures can now beprosecuted for publishing
information deemed nationalsecurity related. But again,
there's no standard. What isnational security related? What

(18:00):
does that mean? Do we now asjournalists have to call the
government to make sure we canpublish something before we
publish it? You know, we'reentering very rough waters. Most
recently, a journalist wasprosecuted for covering Black
Lives Matter protests over thesummer, you know, they were
standing behind the police line.
And then the police said, Nope,we want you to move, the

(18:21):
journalist tried to move andthen was arrested. I mean,
that's the short version of thestory. But that's dangerous.
That is very dangerous. And itis very important. We remember
that journalists are needed, youknow, regardless of what you
think about the media,currently, journalists are
needed. And yes, there might bebiased opinions out there. There

(18:43):
might be biased journalists outthere. But there's just as many
if not more journalistsreporting the truth. You just
have to find them. You just haveto find them. For journalists
now have no protections. Youknow, we're prosecuting an
Australian journalist, are wegoing to prosecute more foreign
journalists? but even more so?

(19:05):
are American journalists goingto be prosecuted by foreign
countries? Now? You know, if wehave a journalist covering a war
in Iraq, or the war inAfghanistan, will they get in
trouble for trying to coverWhat's going on? Because the
government or a foreigngovernment doesn't like what
they're saying. We do enter verydangerous, very rocky waters. A

(19:27):
conviction is scary. Aconviction? Yeah, it's so it's
crazy to think that a journalistcan be prosecuted for this. But,
you know, to the same token,it's important to note Yeah,
Assange did probably publishinformation he showed enough. He
published a lot of stuff. A lotof stuff people got hurt because
everybody published I completelyunderstand that. So there is a

(19:51):
double edged sword if youconvict him.
We have terrible news forjournalism. If you let them go,
does that open the door forjournalists to now
Just do whatever they want.
You know, I said, this is a verycomplex case, I'm not gonna lie.
But it's one of those, let'sweigh the pros and cons. No

(20:11):
matter what somebody is gonna beunhappy, no matter what a
conviction or non conviction isgoing to have implications. But
what is worse for the future ofthe United States.
For those of you who havelistened to the political
environment before, you willknow that there's one thing I

(20:33):
hate more than anything in life,and that's journalists inserting
their opinion into aconversation, or coverage.
However, this is something I'mvery passionate about. So I'm
going to be very point blankright now, what we have spoken
about so far is the facts of thecase, what we're about to speak
about is how I feel about thecase. So if you don't want to
hear my opinion, if you don'tcare about my opinion, feel free

(20:55):
to turn off this this podcast,and I will not be upset, I
completely understand. Again,I'm a journalist, my job is not
to give you my opinion. Butwe're gonna take off the
journalist hat for a second, Idelivered the unbiased truth
about this case. And now I'mgonna give you my opinions.
Quite frankly, this case scaresme, as somebody who wants to go
into investigative journalism,it's terrifying to think that

(21:19):
there is a possibility, I dosomething that maybe pisses
somebody off. And that's the endof it. You know, regardless of
if there's a conviction, we'renow at a point where Assange has
been sitting in a jail cell byhimself dying. So the United
States one, if he's convicted,or not, the US one, he silenced

(21:40):
he can't do anything from a jailcell. What is he supposed to do?
There's no wi fi ngl. You know,he is cut off. He's not
publishing anything. He's notexposing what's going on. So,
you know, in my book, at least,that's a victory for the United
States, regardless of which wayyou if you believe he should be

(22:00):
convicted or not. By having himsit in a jail cell. He's being
silenced, period, end of story.
There's no argument about that.
But that's also very scary. Youknow, he truly is a journalist,
second to none. He has put outplenty of pieces that he gets

(22:21):
praised for. But right now,people are distancing
themselves. When he was seekingrefuge in the Ecuadorian embassy
for years and years and years.
He was on all the mainstreammedia. He was doing interviews
with ABC, NBC, CBC, you know,this was like the story. And now

(22:42):
he's kind of just in the corner.
You know, I think that this is acase we should all be concerned
about.
If he's convicted,things look bad. If he said
free, things look bad. There'sno good outcome in the
situation. There really isn't.
And, and that's one of thereasons and indictment was never

(23:04):
filed years ago.
There's been two indictmentsbecause the first one was
terrible. there's been plenty oftrials because things don't go
in the way that people want itto go.
But at what point is the UnitedStates going to sit back and
say,we don't really have a case,
we're charging him undersomething that he doesn't fall
under. I don't know if they'regonna sit back and think that at

(23:27):
all, because I don't know thatthat's their goal.
It's unfortunate, but we do livein a society, and a country
where the goals of thegovernment aren't always in the
best interest of the people butthe best interest of themselves.
It scares me to know thatthere's politicians directing
these investigations. It scaresme to know that Assange is

(23:49):
blamed for Hillary Clinton'sloss in 2016. Regardless of who
you supported in the 2016election, one man can be blamed
for a loss. Come on, that's justunrealistic. He's not the sole
reason Hillary Clinton lost.
He's just an easy scapegoat. Sowe can't blame him. But the same
politicians who are angry at himand blame him for this loss are

(24:11):
the ones who were guiding anddirecting this investigation.
That's a problem. High conflictof interest. How are you? I
mean, it's right in your face.
And it's one of those cases thatI sit back and I look at, and I
wonder what will happen in yearsto come? My first published

(24:33):
piece was an investigation onthe mental health effects of
COVID-19 on LGBTQ plus youth andspecific.
I go to school on the south.
I know, that's controversial tosome Americans. That's not
necessarily something peoplewant to talk about. So where
does this go, you know, justbecause somebody doesn't like

(24:54):
what I wrote. I'm now publicenemy number one. And so it
does. It's a thing.
Here's a scary, scary, doubleedged sword, regardless of which
way this goes, what you believeshould happen. This is scary.
You know, it's something that Ithink will will be in the

(25:15):
history books. Well, let me takethat back. I don't know if it'll
be in the history books, becausenobody's talking about it right
now. But it should be in thehistory books. But anyway, as
you all know, I hate putting myopinion into things. That's why
I saved this for the end. Youknow, I can assure you that
everything I presented to youwas unbiased. I did not, you

(25:38):
know, when I was doing thisresearch, removed my opinion, I
actually didn't have an opinionbefore I started this research
wasn't until I read my researchmyself, that I had an opinion
and it was like, wait a minute.
So take this episode, as youwill take this case, as you will
formulate your own opinion.
Regardless if you agree ordisagree. Agree with me. I

(25:58):
encourage you though, please, ifyou if you are interested in
this topic, reach out to me, youcan go to my website, Joseph
maronski.net, fill out a contactform and I'll get in touch with
you. I love talking about thiscase, regardless of which way
you feel. I am not somebodywho's going to silence you
because you disagree with me.
You know, I would love to talkto people about this case,

(26:20):
because again, there arediffering opinions. It is
complex. So reach out to me.
Let's hear your thoughts on thiscase. And thank you for letting
me get out my frustration alittle bit there. But I do
appreciate you listening, alwayssupporting the political
empowerment and have a greatweek. You have been listening to
the political informant, yourplace for facts first politics