Julian Assange did not commit a crime

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that the charge against Julian Assange collapses once his alleged conduct is described accurately rather than by the label attached to it. What he is alleged to have done is to have attempted to break a password in order to gain access to a Department of Defense computer network. The purpose of that attempt, on this account, was not to obtain material himself — his source, Chelsea Manning, was an IT analyst who already had access to the network. It was to allow her to retrieve the information without her identity being traceable through her own credentials. That distinction is what the argument rests on. The act was directed at concealing who was supplying the material, not at obtaining material otherwise out of reach. Described that way, it falls within the purview of a journalist protecting the identity of a source, which is a recognised part of the work rather than an incidental feature of this particular case. Proponents then place the conduct against the norms of journalism generally. It is standard practice for journalists to take measures to protect the identity of their sources, because sources who can be identified do not come forward, and reporting on institutional wrongdoing depends on people inside those institutions being able to speak without exposure. The steps taken vary with the circumstances and with the technology involved, but the purpose is constant, and there is nothing wrong with taking them. Assange, on this argument, took steps of exactly that kind. Because he did not commit a crime in doing so, proponents conclude, he should not be extradited to the United States.

Context

In the indictment against Julian Assange, the US government is charging Assange with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The charges allude to an incident in 2010 when Assange allegedly helped former US soldier, Chelsea Manning, crack a password stored on a Defense Department (DoD) computer to gain access to a network in which classified documents and communications are stored.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Journalists are permitted to take steps to protect their source's identity, but these steps must be within the boundaries of the law. Hacking into a government network by cracking a DoD password is not within the boundaries of the law. Therefore, even if Assange was only doing it to protect Manning's identity, it is still a crime. Given Assange knowingly committed a crime and conspired with Manning to hack a government computer network, he should be extradited to the US.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] They may take steps to cover their source's identity, but these must be within the boundaries of the law. Hacking a government network is not within those boundaries.