However welcome the Wikileaks disclosures may be, collection and dissemination of classified documents is an act of civil disobedience, when accomplished by citizen or subject of the government that has formally classified those documents as state secrets.
Assange arguably performed a great service to the cause of truth and transparency in government. In the process, a law was allegedly violated; the espionage act. The act is necessary, and it is also routinely employed in avoidance and corruption of other laws and constitutional safeguards.
To this affair, it seems to me that Jefferson's famous quotation "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" may obtain.
Assange's freedom is, or should be, a matter of law. In a largely metaphorical sense, his days are his life's blood; imprisonment is unversally linked to a shortening of the days of thelife of they who are imprisoned.
But what of his legacy? Should he be compelled by his actions to pay their price under law, shall he be remembered with fondness as was Thoreau, or vilified as another Arnold?
The information that was released held, in part, a record of corruption and malfeasance. In that regard, Assange became an essential corrective. For that, he is owed a debt of gratitude.
What is at stake is a matter of principle, to whit; what reward shall accompany such gratitude when immunity so conferred strikes so deeply within the heart of the rule of law?
There is a very good reason why heroism correlates so often with tragedy. The balance is struck when the burden of tragedy is borne upon the shoulders of the hero. It is the very definition of heroism, sacrifice by the few for the good of the many.
We may ponder or even predict the verdict of law. The verdict of history shall rely on the good that was done thereby. He will thus be judged on the basis of his courage; we citizens can only bear witness.
Wikileaks didn't collect any information. They are a publisher. When given accurate information from a reliable source, it is their duty to publish it, however inconvenient it may be to the powers that be.
Your argument means that The New York Times should be charged with a crime for publishing the Pentagon Papers, and the Washington Post should be charged with a crime for publishing Watergate. Daniel Ellsberg should be considered a criminal, not a hero.
However welcome the Wikileaks disclosures may be, collection and dissemination of classified documents is an act of civil disobedience, when accomplished by citizen or subject of the government that has formally classified those documents as state secrets.
Assange arguably performed a great service to the cause of truth and transparency in government. In the process, a law was allegedly violated; the espionage act. The act is necessary, and it is also routinely employed in avoidance and corruption of other laws and constitutional safeguards.
To this affair, it seems to me that Jefferson's famous quotation "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" may obtain.
Assange's freedom is, or should be, a matter of law. In a largely metaphorical sense, his days are his life's blood; imprisonment is unversally linked to a shortening of the days of thelife of they who are imprisoned.
But what of his legacy? Should he be compelled by his actions to pay their price under law, shall he be remembered with fondness as was Thoreau, or vilified as another Arnold?
The information that was released held, in part, a record of corruption and malfeasance. In that regard, Assange became an essential corrective. For that, he is owed a debt of gratitude.
What is at stake is a matter of principle, to whit; what reward shall accompany such gratitude when immunity so conferred strikes so deeply within the heart of the rule of law?
There is a very good reason why heroism correlates so often with tragedy. The balance is struck when the burden of tragedy is borne upon the shoulders of the hero. It is the very definition of heroism, sacrifice by the few for the good of the many.
We may ponder or even predict the verdict of law. The verdict of history shall rely on the good that was done thereby. He will thus be judged on the basis of his courage; we citizens can only bear witness.
Wikileaks didn't collect any information. They are a publisher. When given accurate information from a reliable source, it is their duty to publish it, however inconvenient it may be to the powers that be.
Your argument means that The New York Times should be charged with a crime for publishing the Pentagon Papers, and the Washington Post should be charged with a crime for publishing Watergate. Daniel Ellsberg should be considered a criminal, not a hero.