United States vs WikiLeaks
White collar crimes are rampant in the United States. One can identify the crimes through the perpetrator using false statements to a certain material that is regarded as a fact to commit fraud. Assange committed fraud through his intentions of wanting to bring harm to the United States government (Wasserman, 2017). Retrogressive acts also signify some level of doubts in the victim. In this case, the institution will undergo some level of downfalls to the point of closure. Money is also a form of the white collar crime in the society. Sending and sharing such information with the general public was a way of making sure that he gets some financial gain from the act. An organized crime is also a form of white collar crime which is what Assange committed through dishing out information that is diplomatic in nature to further his financial situation (Andrejevic, 2014). In the case facing Assange, there is a kind of white collar crime done since he only gave out to the newspapers secret information about the government with the expectation of getting some financial gain. Assange committed fraud by exposing the United States government at WikiLeaks.
Assange distributed the materials on WikiLeaks which means that there is no basis to prosecute Assange on the matter relating to the United States government since he is not a United States citizen. But considering the Espionage Act, Assange will have to be prosecuted accordingly since the law forbids a person from distributing any materials which are perceived to have been stolen. Ruling that Assange committed the crime unknowingly then the case against him is invalid. Such action of just forwarding information is not a crime unless there were warnings against forwarding such information meaning that Assange should not be prosecuted.
Assange broke the law by distributing vital government details to the social media and this is a violation of the Espionage Act (Wasserman, 2017). According to this law, a person is not authorized to send any vital information regarding the government to any unauthorized person or group of individuals. Any information that is considered vital and classified is always classified even if some members of the public have already seen the information. Assange is not an American citizen and in this case, the laws of America protect him against any form of prosecution accordingly. In such a case Espionage Act cannot be applied since the person is not an American citizen and he only distributed information to the WikiLeaks account (Andrejevic, 2014). Assange committed the crime, according to the Espionage Act, knowingly and had the intentions of hurting the United States government. Government information is always stipulated in the Constitution and the vital and disclosed information is not supposed to be shared with any unauthorized person or party but Assange posted the information on a blog making it known to the public and also to the newspapers.
Assange had a lot of support from people from his actions and which were as a result of his actions which involve the costless and victimless crimes. Assange wanted the United States government humiliated by his actions and also show the world how wrong the United States government was in regards to its diplomacy (Andrejevic, 2014). The information was shared intentionally and therefore his motives are more of very predictive. Even if he is not a United States citizen, laws can implicate his freedom in the country. The available protection by the government will not be used on his part and he ought to be brought to the United States soil for prosecution. Assange never wanted his company of WikiLeaks to be implicated with the release of vital data but this did not happen. WikiLeaks is not a newspaper but an organization that deals with the sharing of information only that the information shared, in this case, involves the classified data (O'Loughlin, 2016). Assange never got the outcome of the actions as a result of posting the diplomatic information on his site.
The justice department never stated as to whether the actions of Assange were just but a deviant behavior but according to their ruling and explanations, it was a deviant behavior. If the department of justice does not consider the actions of Assange as deviant, then there is a high probability that there will be cost spent in bringing justice through summoning Assange. Prosecuting such a case will amount to the public and the human rights activists moving to court to block the proceedings since that will be violating the freedom of expression of a person. Assange’s actions are deviant in a way that he gave out vital information with the sole intention of bringing harm to the United States government meaning it is only but a bad behavior of sharing what is already known to some people (Wasserman, 2017). Also, if the pursuit considers the actions of Assange not deviant then the law is not acted upon fully. This is so since Assange never used his own personal profile to share information but shared it using an organization that is used to share any kind of information especially the vital data and the Espionage Act do not apply in this case.
References
Andrejevic, M. (2014). Wikileaks, surveillance and transparency. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2619-2630.
NBCNews. (2013).U.S v. WikiLeaks: espionage and the First Amendment. Retrieved from:
O'Loughlin, J. (2016). The Perils of Self-Censorship in Academic Research in a WikiLeaks World. Journal of Global Security Studies, 1(4), 337-345.
Wasserman, E. (2017). Safeguarding the News in the Era of Disruptive Sources. Journal of Media Ethics, 32(2), 72-85.
