The US Justice Department must drop spy charges against Julian Assange | Margaret Sullivan

Is it true that Merrick Garland, the attorney general appointed by President Biden, intends to leave behind a legacy that opposes the long-standing press freedom in the United States?

If not, Garland is obliged to dismiss the 17 charges under the Espionage Act that have been brought against Julian Assange. This should have taken place a long time ago, but now it is imperative. The London high court is currently deliberating on whether to send Assange to the United States to face these charges.

What occurs in the UK court holds great significance for Assange, who has faced incarceration and sought asylum for numerous years and is currently in poor health. Being extradited would essentially be a death sentence, as noted by his wife.

However, the genuine solution to this concerning issue can be found on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean in the city of Washington.

To begin with, there is a common argument that is frequently brought up regarding Assange - that he isn't really a journalist but rather a mere publisher who shares data, at most. Hence, many believe that the treatment he receives won't have any negative impact on the rights of the American press.

During an interview this week, Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, stated that the controversy regarding whether Assange is a journalist is a misleading topic.

According to Jaffer, the accusations aim to turn the act of journalism into a crime - wherein an individual acquires information from well-informed sources and discloses it to the public. Given the excessive confidentiality of information in the US, citizens depend on journalists to uncover it and inform them of the government's hidden operations.

For many years, American journalists have been able to perform their role without hindrance thanks to the safeguarding of the first amendment.

Think about how the Pentagon Papers put forth the untruths and unethical actions that occurred during the Vietnam War. The National Security Agency's worldwide monitoring systems were outed by journalism done by Washington Post and the Guardian. In the past, The New York Times brought attention to the US government covertly supervising the communication of citizens without the go-ahead from a judge.

The charges against Assange have put this type of reporting in jeopardy, and it is already under threat.

It is not necessary for one to have a favorable opinion of him or his actions of releasing confidential data via WikiLeaks in order to acknowledge the significant harm that these accusations bring, as Jaffer explains.

Think about the impact a future Trump government, supported by a conviction of Assange, could have on the conventional media. The act of reporting would be seen as illegal, and that's precisely the reason why legal advisers of news companies have closely monitored Assange's future and are deeply worried.

In the past, it was suggested that Assange may face charges under the Espionage Act by President Obama due to his actions of receiving and releasing significant amounts of restricted information regarding the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which was primarily acquired from Chelsea Manning, a US army intelligence analyst.

A well-known disclosure is a video of a military operation carried out by American troops in Iraq using an Apache helicopter in 2007, which caused the death of 11 innocent people, comprising two Reuters reporters.

Even though Obama and his justice department didn't exactly have a good relationship with the media, they still didn't like what Manning and Assange did. However, they understood the importance of the situation.

If he is charged under the Espionage Act, which was originally not meant for this situation, it would attempt to make journalism a crime. This is especially dangerous for national security reporting which heavily relies on being able to keep sources confidential: obtaining information from sources that know what's going on, checking it to make sure it is true, researching it further and sharing it with the public to keep them informed.

During the time of President Obama, the justice department opted not to proceed with taking action against Assange due to the "New York Times problem." This means that if Assange were to be prosecuted, it would negatively impact and restrict the work of conventional media outlets. Esteemed reporters who cover national security matters, such as Charlie Savage of the Times and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post, would suffer the consequences.

The force overseeing justice under the leadership of Donald Trump saw the situation as a chance to take advantage. They were eager to cause damage to the traditional news outlets, so they moved ahead at full throttle.

Trump showed support towards WikiLeaks when it released damaging information about his competitor, Hillary Clinton, during the previous presidential race. However, this affection did not provide safety for Julian Assange, who was born in Australia and founded WikiLeaks. In 2019, Assange was charged with 18 offenses, with almost all of them being under the Espionage Act.

James Risen, a seasoned investigative journalist who worked for the New York Times and later with the Intercept, stated that what he witnessed was unprecedented and violated a crucial boundary for reporters.

When journalists are penalized or restrain themselves owing to fear, the public is the one who is immensely affected in addition to the reporters and their news organizations.

The charges against Joe Biden could have been dismissed by his justice department a long time ago, but they have chosen to keep them on the table until now.

The time has come to correct that mistake.

Margaret Sullivan authors columns for Guardian US, covering topics related to media, politics, and culture.