NGOs which should be in overdrive denouncing the attacks on journalists such as Julian Assange and his organisation "Wikileaks", are strangely silent regarding this salient case.

Throughout my years as a reporter working with both mainstream and alternative news outlets, I have always heard about, or ran into those diligent do-gooders who work for NGOs, which spend lots of time and money defending journalists and their rights. Well where are they now? Why are they silent in the case of Julian Assange? Specifically, I am speaking of such outfits as the U.S. based, "Reporters for Freedom of the Press", or "The Committee to Protect Journalists" or the Vienna based "International Press Institute ( IPI). In all fairness to them, so far, the only organisation dedicated to investigating politicised imprisonment , issues related to censorship, torture of, or murder of journalists, or other such unconstitutional abuses around the world, which has mentioned Wikileaks publicly, is the Paris based,"Reporters without Borders" . To their credit they were, or seem to be, so far, the only ones out there in cyberspace, to stand up and defend the embattled journalist and "King of Leaks" against disclosure's Darth Vaders . However, RSF oddly also, in the past berated Mr. Assange for making disclosures related to the Afghan war. So that's it so far, just one "BINGO" (Big International Non-Governmental Organisations) has taken a stand or a position on the Wikileaks issue ( the biggest challenge and threat to a free press in the western world in decades), by defending Assange's website from being taken down by perhaps state sponsored sabotage operations. On its website it states: "Reporters Without Borders condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables." The organization advocating press freedom, is also concerned by some of the extreme comments made by "American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange." Is Julian Assange a journalist? Legal experts , and judicial authorities seeking to "nail" Mr. Assange, are apparently busy day and night arguing what is the definition of a journalist. In my book anyone who collects, acquires and then disseminates newsworthy information or material , qualified as a journalist . Hence, Wikileaks is a news organisation and thereby deserves protection as such, by all national and international organisations dedicated to defending press freedoms in the media an on the Internet. This imperative one can assume, would also include those NGOs in the U.S., which are armed with the mother of all constitutional statutes (now being challenged by the Wikileaks case) protecting these freedoms, namely: The First Amendment. Behind bars but for how long? Mr. Assange is currently jailed on the flimsiest of legal justification. Putting a foreign journalist on trial in the U.S., may not be a "cakewalk" for prosecutors. Yet, perhaps far more sinister and important to us all, if he is charged and convicted of an unspecified crime as of yet, it may set a very dangerous precedent as well. For instance, if charges of alleged crimes against Assange do "stick", who will be next in the docket? Researchers, historians, students who also must have access to declassified material or documents might be targeted by the justice system. Will anyone examining such material for study or research reasons-purposes, be potentially indictable for crimes against the state such as espionage? Beware, because unwittingly you may be in the possession of highly sensitive and classified material left- over from an old government job, or may have seen (copied, read, rewrote) restricted sensitive briefs while gathering sources for a thesis or dissertation. The possibilities for criminalizing access to information are endless if Wikileaks is shut down and its founder jailed. Such disturbing questions have been raised by the Wikileaks affair. They may not be answered for some time. In the meanwhile, those NGOs which should be asking and examining these issues with great alacrity and concern, for the most part, remain it appears mute and invisible.