The United States' first amendment was, pre-WikiLeaks revelations, cited by the world media as epitomising a commitment to press freedom unparalleled elsewhere, enabling its press to play a critical role in providing a check and balance on the members of the executive (White House) as well as the legislature (the two Houses). The rest of the world, particularly in countries where there was no press freedom looked longingly at the first amendment. The good guys, so anyone in the media anywhere in the world would have unhesitatingly stated are countries that allow freedom of the press.
This perception, however, began to change soon after the Iraq war. Embedded Western journalists with the US and British forces were required to have their stories vetted by the armed forces prior to airing them, a necessary condition during times of war, with an obvious inherent bias. White House Spokesperson Ari Fleisher's warning in August 2006 to Americans is memorable in this regard: "Watch what you do and what you say". The rationale behind the warning was accepted by the US media, with five of the major US networks, including CNN agreeing to self-censorship in reporting on the war! Journalists from other countries largely agreed that war time represents exceptional circumstances wherein patriotism as defined by the state takes precedence over truth. The decision of the US army to bomb and harass Al-Jazeera offices and its reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan were largely ignored by the rest of the world's media - Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy after all and any news agency reporting negatively on the good guys, led by the US forces, were fair game as long as the US denied any intent to target the network.
WikiLeaks, however, is different as the revelations concern matters that relate to the evaluation of US Ambassadors of key political/military players of their host country, including Pakistan, as well as relating to conversations that occurred. While individuals mentioned in the State Department epistles can challenge the assessment of the US officials yet they cannot challenge the reported conversations. For example Prime Minister Gilani may challenge Anne Patterson's assessment of the servile role he plays with respect to President Zardari, (an assessment of the former American Ambassador that would be wholeheartedly supported by the Pakistani media), but he cannot challenge her dispatch that he fully supported the drone attacks but he would clamour in the National Assembly that he opposed them. Similarly, President Zardari cannot deny that he told the Americans that he had given nothing to this hapless nation but inflation.
However, Pakistani officialdom has - and one is compelled to include not only the civilian politicians, but also the armed forces post WikiLeaks - has, by and large, not felt the need to provide any justification for their 'candid' chats with US officialdom on matters that clearly compromise the country's sovereignty. This should come as no surprise. Corruption scandals, consisting of billions of dollars of losses to the national exchequer - loss in excess of what the government is seeking from the United States as well as the International Monetary Fund - continue to be ignored by the executive. The courts have emerged as the only entity engaged in making the corrupt accountable by taking suo motu notice. The entire onus of justice with respect to corruption is thus on the country's courts; while the court's ability to prove is compromised by the investigative branch of the government, led by a PPP loyalist Rehman Malik; this was noted in a conversation between Rehman Malik and Patterson, as revealed by WikiLeaks. In the terminology of chess, the courts have been able to check the government, but the power to checkmate continues to reside with the government. Accusations of past corruption hurled at members of the opposition, both PML (N) and PML (Q), members of the armed forces and journalists are not weighty as the onus of starting an investigating on any charge - be it serious fraud or mismanagement - rests with the government; as does the filing of the charges in the courts by the Attorney General's office. The powers that be simply do not take any notice of any charges, past or present, and have begun targeting the whistle blower Amnesty International Pakistan.
A casualty of WikiLeaks is the US claim that it operates on a higher moral ground than other nations. Previously, it was largely the people of Muslim countries as well as what the US labelled as (rogue leaders), including Ahmedinejad of Iran, Fidel Castro and his brother Raoul of Cuba, Kim Il Jong of North Korea, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Putin of Russia, who accused the United States of double standards. Now the chorus has widened to the general public in Western countries, as the US is considering seeking WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange's extradition to try him on charges of terrorism and/or espionage. His arrest in the UK on charges of sexual misconduct, the initial statement that he would be unable to see his lawyers for six days that was then reversed, have not detracted his supporters. Anonymous, an internet group, has announced its support for WikiLeaks and launched attacks against PayPal, MasterCard, Visa and the Swiss bank PostFinance, in retaliation for perceived anti-WikiLeaks behaviour under the codename of Operation Avenge Assange. Due to the attacks, both MasterCard and Visa's websites were brought down on December 8.
Can the US try Assange under the first amendment? Assange received the 2009 Media award from Amnesty International, intended to "recognise excellence in human rights journalism" and he has been recognised as a journalist by the Centre for investigative journalism. In December 2010 however, US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley objected to the description of Assange as a journalist, and stated that the US State Department does not regard WikiLeaks as a legitimate media organisation.
The Times magazine notes that the only real ammunition America has to protect state secrets, most legal observers agree, is the Espionage Act of 1917, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson amid fears of domestic unrest and possible sabotage as American entered the World War I. However, First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams warns that the Supreme Court spent most of the 20th century steadily narrowing the Espionage Act's reach when it comes to the news media's publication of secrets.
US Atty. General Eric H. Holder Jr., said "We have a very serious criminal investigation that's under way, and we're looking at all of the things that we can do to try to stem the flow of this information". He added that prosecutors are looking beyond espionage, "there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal." Among them, law enforcement sources said is charging Assange with receiving stolen property. "There is no Official Secrets Act" here, Abrams points out. He also states that if the government stretches to get around the Constitution to charge Assange, it may end up damaging the press freedoms enjoyed by every publisher.
A related question, according to Times, is: if WikiLeaks was wrong to publish the cables, what of the newspapers that also published the secret documents? The magazine argues that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others are busy weakening the government's case. "American officials are working overtime to downplay the seriousness of the leaks. And as embarrassing as they are, that's not the standard (for prosecution)," Abrams added.
The obvious recommendation to the US by the world media would be to let matters be, wait for the furore to die down and ensure that such leaks do not occur in future. To seek vengeance on a whistleblower at the cost of weakening the revered first amendment, when the US courts have favoured the media in the past in any case is the height of folly. But then arrogance is a government's failing that continues to take its toll in the West and the East, North as well as South.