15:04 GMT13 July 2020
Listen Live
    Get short URL

    Julian Assange has criticized a bill proposed by US Senate Intelligence Committee, which labels WikiLeaks "a non-state intelligence service."

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has criticized a bill proposed by US Senate Intelligence Committee, which labels the whistleblowing website "a non-state intelligence service."

    "WikiLeaks like many serious media organizations has confidential sources in the US government. Media organizations develop and protect sources. So do intelligence agencies. But to use this to suggest, as the 'Pompeo doctrine' does, that media organizations are 'non-state intelligence services' is absurd. It is equivalent to suggesting that the CIA is a media organization… It is clear that if the 'Pompeo doctrine' applies to WikiLeaks then it applies equally if not more so to other serious outlets," Assange said in a statement on Wednesday.

    The text of the bill, which was passed by US Senate Intelligence Committee by a 14-1 vote in July, was released on August 18. It still requires approval by the Senate and the House of Representatives as well as the signature of US President Donald Trump.

    The US intelligence community believes WikiLeaks was linked to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, which Moscow repeatedly denied. The organization published emails from the campaign chairman of then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, which caused scandals that might have contributed to Trump's victory.

    In April, CIA Director Mike Pompeo labeled the organization as "a hostile intelligence service," following a series of leaks of CIA's materials.


    WikiLeaks Releases User Guide for CIA's Tool for Remote Video Stream Collection
    WikiLeaks Releases Docs on 'Dumbo' CIA Tool Allowing Control of Webcams
    US Senate Considers Naming WikiLeaks a ‘Non-State Hostile Intelligence Service’
    intelligence, US Senate Intelligence Committee, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, United States
    Community standardsDiscussion