Julian Assange is probably the most famous independent author / editor / publisher in the world. It is only because WikiLinks is NOT controlled by any Republican or Democratic Party faction, or any foreign power, because it has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S., and antagonized powerful corrupt wealthy elites all over the world, that Assange is being persecuted.
Unlike with Manning, who after all was a U.S. soldier, the Assange crucifixion we are now witnessing involves the most fundamental issue of free speech on the world stage. If independent internet-based whistle-blower sites like WikiLeaks — which has never been accused of circulating a single forgery and has been tremendously responsible in working with major world media to fact-check and avoid harming any individual agents or innocents) — if WikiLeaks does not survive, then facts and “news” crucial to forming popular opinion will be controlled only by state and corporate monopoly interests. To allow this to happen just because of one or another paranoid partisan concern, would be a tremendous betrayal of American ideals and the world’s future.
It doesn’t even matter if one likes Julian Assange or suspects his motives. WikiLeaks, if it survives, will be only the first, hopefully not the last, truly important non-state whistleblower resource for revealing truth on the international stage.
You know, Tom, there is at least a bit of truth in the above, and an obviously heartfelt concern with government wrongdoing going unchecked because information about it can't get out, which I wholeheartedly share.
Where I find you run off a clear and defensible argumentative path is on two issues. First, Assange is not Wikileaks. If anything, Assange's apparent personality defects, his narcissism, his Napoleon complex, were starting to hurt Wikileaks (his co-workers confirmed as much), and the site will probably continue without him. It is always, always dangerous to have anything based on just one personality and their ideosyncratic preferences, rather than an institution carried by many, stabilized by many, with checks against errant behavior by some.
Second, Wikileaks is far from the only site for whistleblowers to go public. Near every major newspaper has their own anonymized whistleblower section, most notably those Wikileaks relied upon to check their next document dump. That should reduce your angst about wrongdoing not coming to light. Moreover, there should not be a need for Wikileaks, at least in the developed world, where proper whistleblower protections should be the legally implemented, and eagerly watched-over standard. That is to say, it would be the electorate's responsibility to watch over their ruling class and to protect themselves by way of insisting on such protections.
Ask yourself, Tom: Why did Snowden NOT simply contact Wikileaks? The reason, I think, is that he didn't trust them. Neither to vet the documents properly, nor to put them in the proper context to explain them. Snowden savaged Wikileaks for their
Turkey document dump, which apparently wasn't vetted at all, and contained personal information on millions of ordinary Turkish voters. That is to say, Wikileaks has to get a lot better to live up to the picture you are painting, and, maybe, Assange not dominating the organization would be a good thing for it. That's not to justify how he is being treated - just to say, that organization has to rethink its proper role, not let itself be used, and do a better job. Other than that, you could check out
Investigative Journalism and News in the Public Interest - and maybe support them (if you don't already).