Justice For Julian

Too much blame has fallen upon Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, for the release of military footage of innocent civilians in Iraq being shot from a helicopter. Many people are upset about the information becoming public, but if he is not allowed to publish the information he receives, he is not able to exercise his full right to freedom of speech. Personally, as a citizen of the United States, I would like to know what the government is doing. Assange is being blamed for acting as a middleman in relaying governmental and military information when the blame really should be focused on those two systems’ decisions.

WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization that is devoted to exposing information given to them for the public and journalists to see. One of the goals of the organization is to encourage change among the government. Because of the material released there has been more investigation into the governments involved, which is a good thing because then the government won’t get out of hand. Assange prides himself on the idea that WikiLeaks promotes justice. Obviously, his actions support his words because he posted a lot of evidence that the United States government and military are not making the best choices to support justice.

What the government and military does reflects on the country as a whole and the people who live there. If the military is shooting innocent people from helicopters, it makes Americans look bad, which could lead to disputes between people all around the world. For example, after September 11, 2001, when Muslim terrorists crashed into the Twin Towers, many people disliked all Muslim people and showed them disrespect. This is completely unfair because did every singly Muslim person partake in the terrorist activity? No. Only a handful out of the entire Muslim population did, but yet, people blamed the whole population and named each Muslim a suspect.

Even though Assange is being accused of having no morals, the military is shooting innocent civilians from helicopters. Who has no morals now? The government has no right getting upset with Assange for releasing the video of the helicopter shooting Iraqis. Obviously the government knows it was wrong to shoot the civilians because the video is so hush-hush and the government is upset that the video was released. Because the government advocates for the military—it has to get its orders from somewhere—the government is somewhat responsible for the act and because it is responsible for the act, it doesn’t want the rest of the world to know about it. This is where Assange comes in: the government is angry with him because it is embarrassed for its actions.

The video of the soldiers in the helicopter shooting innocent civilians really put a reality on the war. No longer do people imagine what happens during war—they know. It’s a harsh world. The release of the information also changed the way people view the US. Immoral and wrong might be a few words that come to mind. Although what the government and military had done was wrong, the entire country is not like that. The United States should be seen as a great country, because it really is. The release of the helicopter video was a good thing because it put in perspective how and where the government and military need to make a few changes.

While some might argue that Assange should not have released information because it caused consequences for the people involved, government workers gave him the information that he published, therefore, making him just a middleman. He received field notes from the war in Afghanistan, which included the names of 300 people involved and did not change the names before releasing the documents to the public. Expertise versus manpower should be taken into consideration when placing the blame on who should’ve changed the names in the field notes. Bradley Manning (who gave Assange the field notes) and Assange did not have the power or expertise to change the names in the notes. Big name newspaper, journal, and magazine companies have the resources to change names in private information, which is how the names were changed later on.

Some might argue that not all middlemen can be exempt from punishment and in some cases that might be true. For example, if someone is an accessory to murder, fraud, embezzlement, robbery, or anything along those lines, the middleman will have consequences. However, the case with Assange is different. Because the field notes from the war in Afghanistan came from an inside government source, Assange should not have been responsible for changing the names of the people in the field notes. He was hardly involved. It’s like an assembly line: the information went from the government to Assange to WikiLeaks. If a factory makes a malfunctioning product (say a cell phone), it is not the factory workers who are to blame. It is the machines.

Freedom of speech is one of the most precious rights a human can have. Without freedom of speech, people are restrained from communicating their feelings to others. We are allowed to have our own thoughts, so why should we be forced to keep them to ourselves? It is actually an admirable quality when someone can speak his or her mind. If he is not able to publish what he wants, Julian Assange is being denied that basic right. Not being able to write that the United States military is shooting innocent civilians is like not being able to tell the teacher that someone is cheating off of you. Assange did the right thing by publishing to the world that what the military was doing was not acceptable. Many others would be too afraid of the government or military would do to them. It’s like the students who do not have the courage to report cheating to his or her professors because of fear of what the cheater might do to them.

Because of the seriousness of the information about the United States that Assange published, some might argue that he feels perfectly comfortable publishing information about the United States but not about Australia. They are wound up about it because they think Assange can do it and not feel guilty because he is not an American. However, Assange has published about cables leading back to Australia with information (the exact information has yet to be released) and Australian officials are not acting like US officials at all. In fact, Australian officials are actually okay with the whole thing because they think what the US military did (shooting innocent civilians from the helicopter) was appalling, which is expected, considering the deed.

With a massive reaction around the world at what was published on WikiLeaks, of course Assange learned from his actions. Yes, perhaps he should have changed the names in the Afghan field notes. Yes, perhaps he should have thought more about the consequences of making the helicopter video public. Assange now has people who make sure the information is suitable to publish and change names if necessary. However, it is better that now the information is out because hopefully now the government and military will be more cautious about the actions they choose to carry out. It could be as if any moment the world could know what kinds of things are going on behind the scenes. It is exactly what Assange wanted: a way for the government and military to be investigated to make sure justice is happening.

Assange was recently on trial for the accusation of three sexual assault charges and one rape charge of two Swedish women (although the definition of rape is different in Sweden than it is in the United States). The trial ended with him being extradited to Sweden in which the final trial could result in up to four years in prison. Some associate the extradition to Sweden with some punishment for the WikiLeaks incident in the United States and hope that Sweden would be a gateway into being extradited to the US so he could really serve time for publishing information.
How and what Assange published on WikiLeaks results in future change. First off, publishers are going to be much more careful about what they publish and who they publish about. The helicopter video was very unexpected and shocking and caused a huge explosion around the world (either about Assange publishing it or about what the military was doing). Now, big and small publishers are also more careful about changing the names of those who are noted in the material. Also, because the whole incident had such a big impact on the government it is probably going to be more cautious with orders and secret doings. WikiLeaks is a promoter of justice and the public now knows it is not being had.

Julian Assange is not a immoral human being like some people say. He is a promoter of justice and that is seen in his actions. He did not publish information on WikiLeaks about the US so Australia would look better; he did not publish information on WikiLeaks about the US to bash on it. He published it to show the wrongs of the US government and military regarding the wars and to encourage the government to make some changes.