WikiLeaks and the Legal Battle of Julian Assange: Between Exposé and Asylum, What Is the Price of Truth?
"Is revealing state secrets heroic or criminal?" The legal showdown between WikiLeaks and Assange that shocked the world — it's time to revisit it.
.jpg "WikiLeaks and the Legal Battle of Julian Assange: Between Exposé and Asylum, What Is the Price of Truth?")
Hello. Do you remember the name Julian Assange, who frequently appeared in international news a while ago? Since 2010, he has been at the center of global controversy by releasing a vast amount of U.S. and international diplomatic and military secrets through the platform "WikiLeaks." Is he a hero or a criminal? The debate remains unresolved, and his legal fate continues to attract worldwide media attention. Today, I’d like to explore Assange's exposé activities and the resulting international legal disputes, focusing on the tension between freedom of expression and national security in the digital age.
Table of Contents
What Kind of Organization is WikiLeaks?
WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization founded in 2006, aimed at safely disclosing confidential documents provided by whistleblowers. Founder Julian Assange declared that through this, he would realize global knowledge sharing by promoting 'freedom of information' and 'government transparency.'
Based on a system of anonymity guarantees and an international network, WikiLeaks served as a platform to expose sensitive information that media or governments found difficult to handle. Its major leaks included Iraq war logs, Afghan war secrets, and diplomatic cables, shocking global media and governments.
Julian Assange's Leak Activities
In 2010, Assange gained global attention by leaking about 500,000 U.S. military and diplomatic secrets. Among them, the video titled "Collateral Murder," showing a U.S. Apache helicopter killing civilians, was particularly shocking.
| Time of Leak | Key Content | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| April 2010 | "Collateral Murder" video | Sparked war crime allegations against the U.S. military |
| July–October 2010 | Afghanistan and Iraq war logs | International criticism of U.S. foreign policy |
| November 2010 | About 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables | Caused diplomatic friction between the U.S. and allies |
From Sexual Assault Allegations to Asylum
Shortly after the leaks in 2010, Assange faced international arrest warrants over allegations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden. Assange claimed it was political retaliation and, in 2012, sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London — leading to the unprecedented situation of residing there for seven years.
- 2012: Entered Ecuadorian embassy just before arrest by British police
- 2019: Ecuador revoked asylum → Arrested by British police
- Present: Ongoing legal battle over extradition to the U.S.
U.S. Espionage Charges and Controversy
Assange was indicted by the U.S. government for violating the Espionage Act. This law, enacted in 1917, has primarily been applied to wartime espionage and leakers of classified information. The U.S. argues that Assange harmed national security by acquiring and disclosing classified documents in 2010.
- 17 out of 18 charges relate to violations of the Espionage Act
- Potential sentence of up to 175 years, drawing criticism from international human rights groups
- Rising concerns over press freedom violations and international alarm
Extradition Battle in the U.K.
Assange is currently imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison in the U.K., where legal proceedings regarding the U.S. extradition request are ongoing. In 2021, the lower court denied extradition citing mental health concerns, but a higher court later overturned the ruling and allowed extradition, intensifying the legal fight.
| Year | Case Progress | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Arrested at Ecuadorian Embassy | Detained by British police |
| 2021 | Lower court: Extradition denied | Due to mental health deterioration |
| 2022–Present | Appeals court: Extradition approved | Final decision lies with the UK Home Secretary and Supreme Court |
Freedom of the Press and the Limits of Expression
The Julian Assange case goes beyond a mere leak of classified documents—it's now a global debate about how to draw the line between press freedom and national security. There are also differing views on whether Assange is a journalist or a hacker.
- Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International oppose extradition
- The New York Times and The Washington Post support the principle of "protecting journalists"
- In the U.S., calls for stronger protection of classified information also persist
- This connects with freedom of expression issues in the AI and digital age
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Yes, WikiLeaks is still active and continues to provide access to past leaked materials. However, its operations have significantly shrunk since Assange’s imprisonment.
Opinions are divided. Some see Assange as a journalist who mediated whistleblowers’ information; others view him as a hacker who accessed classified material illegally. This distinction is also key to the legal proceedings.
Traditionally, the Espionage Act has not been applied to journalists. However, the Assange case is seen as a landmark test of those boundaries, raising widespread concerns over press freedom.
Most of them were confirmed to be genuine. The U.S. government never claimed they were fake. The real controversy lies not in authenticity, but in how the information was disclosed and its consequences.
There is no clear answer. In a democratic society, both values are important, and how the balance is set depends on each country and its time period.
He is currently imprisoned in the UK, and the final decision on extradition to the U.S. has not yet been made. This case continues to draw international attention.
In Conclusion: How Much Should We Endure for the Truth?
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have sparked not just a case of whistleblowing, but a critical debate in the digital age about government oversight, freedom of expression, and state control. Assange’s revelations brought hidden truths to light, but the legal and political fallout continues to unfold. This case reminds us to reflect on how we balance freedom of information with responsibility, and transparency with security. Society and legal systems must work together to ensure that "telling the truth" does not become a crime.
.jpg)
.jpg)
