Thomas Jefferson once shot a man on the White House Lawn for treason. The Western world has come a long way since then, and such matters are now subject to our judicial system. In the Australian context, the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), particularly Division 80, specifies actions that constitute treason, including causing harm to the Sovereign, levying war against the Commonwealth, and assisting the enemy or those engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
Julian Assange is now a free man. The founder of WikiLeaks has been at the centre of a global debate on press freedom, transparency, and national security. WikiLeaks’ publication of classified documents, including those related to Australian military operations, has been both lauded as a triumph of free speech and condemned as a reckless endangerment of lives and national security.
Assange’s leaks included sensitive information about Australian military operations, defence strategies, and communications with US officials. These disclosures can be argued to fall under the purview of treason as defined by Australian law. Specifically, Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code outlines assisting the enemy and assisting those engaged in armed hostilities against the ADF as offences.
By releasing classified information that could potentially aid adversaries of Australia, Assange’s actions can, and should, be interpreted as assisting the enemy and those hostile to the Australian Defence Force. Simply put, these leaks compromised military operations and endangered the lives of Australian soldiers and their allies overseas.
Condoning the actions of Assange and WikiLeaks sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a message that the unauthorised disclosure of classified information, regardless of its potential to harm national security, can be justified under the banner of transparency and press freedom. This perspective ignores the reality that certain information, if exposed, can have dire consequences for national defence and the safety of individuals involved.
Many view Assange as a hero of free speech, a whistleblower who exposed government malfeasance. Our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, is among them. However, this narrative overlooks the gravity of his actions under Australian law. By releasing sensitive military information, Assange did not just inform the public; he armed adversaries with critical intelligence.
The Australian government, like any other, has a vested interest in protecting its citizens and maintaining national security. The leaks published by WikiLeaks included details that may have jeopardised military operations and lives. From this standpoint, Assange’s actions align more closely, in my view, with treason than heroism.
The political embrace of Assange that we have seen over the last few days, particularly by some Australian politicians and the Prime Minister, is deeply troubling. It reflects a disconnect between the serious implications of his actions and the narrative of press freedom that has been constructed around him. Celebrating Assange as a hero undermines the sacrifices of those in the ADF and compromises the integrity of national security protocols.
The balance between transparency and national security is delicate. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing corruption and holding governments accountable. However, there is a clear distinction between whistleblowing and treason. Whistleblowers typically expose wrongdoing within a framework that seeks to minimise harm to national security, whereas Assange’s indiscriminate release of classified information did not, in my view, adhere to such principles.
Hailing Julian Assange as a hero without considering the full impact of his actions and their consequences undermines the essence of justice and national security. Why have laws if we don’t enforce them? We can still enforce these serious laws while promoting transparency and accountability. When viewed through the lens of Australian law, the activities of WikiLeaks and Assange risk aiding our enemies and those engaged in hostilities against the ADF – actions that should be charged and tried accordingly.