For obvious reasons, when those in power misuse that power, they don’t want other people to know the truth. Fortunately, there are a few brave souls in the world known as whistleblowers who take action to alert the public of such misdeeds.
A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.[2] The information of alleged wrongdoing can be classified in many ways: violation of company policy/rules, law, regulation, or threat to public interest/national security, as well as fraud, and corruption.[3] ... Whistleblowers, however, take the risk of facing stiff reprisal and retaliation from those who are accused or alleged of wrongdoing.
a whistleblower from the past — Daniel EllsbergAn example of a whistle blower is Daniel Ellsberg, who famously released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. This document revealed that early on, the government realized that the Vietnam war could not be won, and “demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance"; it was classified as a top-secret document, so Ellsberg was charged with espionage in addition to theft and conspiracy. Lucky for Ellsberg and everyone who believes that government should be accountable to the people, the charges against him were dismissed because of the evidence of government wrongdoing.
Perhaps intriguingly today, even though the government wrongdoing had been done by a Democrat, it was a Republican president who was most affected by this case: Richard M. Nixon. Here is how H.R. Haldeman described the situation to Nixon:
Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... You can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment; and the – the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.[18]
The Nixon administration was not happy about the loss of their own implicit infallibility as a side effect of Ellsberg’s whistleblowing against Johnson. To protect the continued sheep-like trust of the public in whoever occupied the Oval Office, they wanted to silence the whistleblower and minimize the public’s knowledge of the Pentagon Papers. In addition to bringing charges against Ellsberg, the Nixon administration ordered the NYT to immediately stop publishing the Pentagon Papers. When they refused, the government brought suit against them; the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court, prior to that, an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further publication. This was the first time the federal government was able to restrain the publication of a major newspaper since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to seventeen other newspapers in rapid succession.[19] The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York Times Co. v. United States. The Supreme Court ruling has been called one of the "modern pillars" of First Amendment rights with respect to freedom of the press.[20]
The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
— Justice Black[31]Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summarized the reaction of editors and journalists at the time:
As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the 'free press' of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring 'burden-of-proof' decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America's publishers and broadcasters.
— Tedford and Herbeck, pp. 225–226.[32]Turns out that the efforts of Nixon White House staffers against Ellsberg would eventually result in the Watergate burglaries, the scandal that resulted in Nixon’s resignation from the Presidency. For decades, many have regarded the efforts of Ellsberg, the New York Times, and the Washington Post regarding publication of the Pentagon Papers as nothing short of heroic.
a whistleblower from the present — Julian AssangeNow that we’ve reviewed the case of Daniel Ellsberg, let us consider the case of Julian Assange, who founded WikiLeaks for the express purpose of publishing documents from whistleblowers. Unlike most every MSM outlet, including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN, WikiLeaks has a remarkable track record of being factually correct: “Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.”
Just as the Nixon administration despised Daniel Ellsberg for his truth-telling, the Bush 43, Obama, and Trump administrations despise Assange. It has come to light that Trump’s Justice Department has charged Julian Assange in a sealed indictment.
The disclosure occurred through a remarkably amateurish cutting-and-pasting error in which prosecutors unintentionally used secret language from Assange’s sealed charges in a document filed in an unrelated case. Although the document does not specify which charges have been filed against Assange, the Wall Street Journal reported that“they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.”
The decision to prosecute Assange is yet another amateurish act from an amateurish president. Glenn Greenwald explains how the Obama Justice Department wanted to prosecute Assange, ironically for reasons of national defense, but ultimately decided that it could not do so without violating the First Amendment.
Reporting on the secret acts of government officials or powerful financial actors – including by publishing documents taken without authorization – is at the core of investigative journalism. From the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers to the Snowden disclosures to publication of Trump’s tax returns to the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, some of the most important journalism over the last several decades has occurred because it is legal and constitutional to publish secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illicit or even illegal means.
The Obama DOJ – despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms – recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing.
As the Washington Post put it in 2013 when it explained the Obama DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Assange:
Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.
Those Democrats who actually applaud Trump now for prosecuting Assange at this time should be careful what they wish for. When all whistleblowers have been silenced, government can deceive its own people without any fear of consequences. That may not seem like a problem if and when the team you are rooting for is in charge, but please, please consider what will transpire when the wrong team holds power.
It is short-sighted to support Trump with respect to Assange out of personal animosity towards him. What is to stop Trump from classifying more documents, and charge those who are reporting on children in cages and outrageous deportation with violating the same Espionage Act that Assange is allegedly in violation of? Nothing, my friends. Absolutely nothing.
“But I suppose the most revolutionary act one can engage in is... to tell the truth.” ― Howard Zinn