Julian Assange is not just any journalist. The approval by the British Government of his extradition to the United States, accused of 18 crimes, including one of espionage, transcends the particular case of the founder of WikiLeaks and is a disturbing warning for the practice of journalism in Western democracies. Washington is prosecuting Assange for WikiLeaks’ release of confidential information, military records and diplomatic cables that he believes put lives in danger. But the US Attorney’s Office has not been able to present a single case in which the documents of Assange’s organization have been exhaustively verified and published, among other media, by EL PAÍS, The New York Times, The Guardian, The world o The mirror contain information that could endanger a person’s life.
What has reached world public opinion thanks to the information obtained and provided by WikiLeaks is evidence of lies, distortions of the truth and abuses against the civilian population in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also important pressures from the US Administration on different governments. This is legitimate and necessary information that had been hidden unjustifiably twisting the scope of the concept of State secrets. Power defends itself against the leak of what it wants to hide: that’s all.
Assange’s personal evolution has been complex and his public image has adopted gestures between anti-system provocation and the histrionics of stardom. A fugitive from Swedish justice, accused of rape and sexual abuse, he was sentenced to almost a year in prison by British justice for skipping the restrictions on his provisional release in 2012 while his extradition to Sweden was pending. But the activist, who has always defended his innocence, took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he remained for seven years with the approval of President Rafael Correa, while he was being spied on. At that time, Sweden closed the case due to the difficulties of processing it; not so the United States. The decision of the British Government is appealable, but it will be the last cartridge for him.
None of the foregoing can interfere with the right of the media to disseminate truthful information —and in a responsible manner, as it was done— and that of the public to know it: the strength of democracies depends on the solvency and strength of their media , and the daring to bring to light precisely what power wants to keep hidden. That is what happened with the WikiLeaks documents. The right to information is protected by all democratic constitutional systems. Going after an emblematic figure whose task was to facilitate public access to relevant information is not only an individual punishment; contains a veiled threat against professionals willing to do it again.