In the age of social media, few individuals have caused such disruption in global politics as Julian Assange, the Australian national who launched the controversial media organization WikiLeaks in 2007.
WikiLeaks, a champion of transparency and openness of information, has drawn the ire of the political establishment — as well as a sizable contingent of everyday citizens — by publicizing secret and, at times, sensitive information.
Early Monday morning, a WikiLeaks tweet accused an unidentified state actor of eliminating Assange’s internet access in London’s Ecuadorean embassy, where he was granted asylum in 2012.
The events could spell trouble for Assange — and potentially WikiLeaks — in the future.
I find it difficult to convince myself that the fact that this occurred the same weekend that WikiLeaks divulged transcripts of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s enigmatic speeches to Goldman Sachs executives is merely serendipitous.
Roughly two days earlier, on Saturday, WikiLeaks released the transcripts, which former challenger Bernie Sanders used to rally his supporters and Clinton’s campaign staunchly refused to make public.
WikiLeaks has since accused Ecuador of cutting Assange’s access, but details remain scant. It’s not unreasonable to consider the possibility that this was the result of strong-arming.
After all, Ecuador has provided him sanctuary for more than four years, and its motivation for severing his internet access remains to be seen.
For months following WikiLeaks’ disclosures of nearly 20,000 emails between high-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee, media outlets and political players, including President Obama and Clinton’s campaign manager Robbie Mook, insinuated Russia was behind the attacks.
Today’s editorial piece references the Clinton campaign’s propensity to blame the world’s ills on Russia, and this is the most prominent example.
There’s no concrete evidence to reinforce these claims, but screaming “Putin!” is one way to divert attention.
Regardless of the true hacker’s identity, Monday’s news shows the precariousness of Assange’s position and could conceivably signal greater problems for WikiLeaks.
Should he leave or be evicted from the embassy, he faces near-certain extradition to Sweden to be questioned about an alleged rape that occurred in 2010. From there, it’s likely he’d be extradited to the U.S., where he would face questioning and potential charges regarding WikiLeaks.
With this news, it becomes more plausible that Assange will ultimately be extradited.
If it is determined Assange did commit the crimes of which he’s been accused in Sweden, he should receive an appropriate punishment. But for his so-called offenses related to WikiLeaks?
For whatever reason, the Clinton campaign refused to release the Goldman Sachs transcripts.
By publishing them, WikiLeaks did not alter the course of the election or expose Clinton’s identity as the Antichrist. But it did make information public the electorate had every right to see, especially in a pivotal election year.
Even though the revelations weren’t groundbreaking, they deserved to be seen, and they were.
In reality, it’s probably a matter of time before Assange is forced to face the music.
Regardless of his fate, the entire field of journalism has grown thanks to WikiLeaks and its commitment to transparency and openness.
@daniel_kilc_
dkilcull@indiana.edu
