Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ASSANGE. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ASSANGE. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Julian Assange wins temporary reprieve in case against extradition to US

Haroon Siddique Legal affairs correspondent
THE GUARDIAN
Tue, 26 March 2024

Supporters of Assange outside the high court in London on Wednesday.Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images

Julian Assange has been handed a reprieve in his fight against extradition to the US after two judges ruled the WikiLeaks founder could take his case to an appeal hearing – but only if the Biden administration is unable to provide the court with suitable assurances.

The president of the king’s bench division, Victoria Sharp, and Mr Justice Johnson said Assange had real prospects of success on three of the nine grounds argued, but adjourned the leave to appeal application to give the US government three weeks to provide reassurance on the relevant matters.

If Assange had been denied permission to appeal he could have been extradited within days to face espionage charges. While the judges’ decision means he avoids that fate it leaves him facing a further wait, with his future still unresolved.

In a written judgment, handed down on Tuesday morning, Sharp said the concerns that had real prospects of success at appeal but which “may be capable of being addressed by assurances” were “that the applicant [Assange] is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed”.

At a two-day hearing last month, which Assange was too unwell to attend, his lawyers argued that he faced a “flagrant denial of justice” if extradited to the US to face charges relating to the publication by Assange and WikiLeaks of thousands of classified and diplomatic documents they said had exposed torture, rendition, extrajudicial killings and war crimes.

His wife, Stella Assange, expressed dismay at the judges’ decision. “What the courts have done has been to invite a political intervention from the United States … send a letter saying ‘its all OK’,” she said. “I find this astounding.

“This case is a retribution. It is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and will try to kill you.

“The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought.”

Ahead of the decision there had been reports that the US government was considering a plea deal offer to Assange, allowing him to admit to a misdemeanour, which would enable him to walk free from prison in the UK but his lawyers said they had been “given no indication” Washington intended to change its approach.

Sharp stated in Tuesday’s 66-page judgment that the UK home secretary’s lawyer had accepted that there was nothing in place to prevent Assange being charged in the US with an offence that carried the death penalty and it then being imposed.

She cited as evidence of such a risk “the calls for the imposition of the death penalty by leading politicians and other public figures; the fact that the [UK-US extradition] treaty does not preclude extradition for death penalty charges, and the fact that the existing assurance does not explicitly cover the death penalty”.

On free speech protections under the first amendment in the US, Sharp said: “He [Assange] contends that if he is given first amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The first amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence to the extradition charge. Further, if he is convicted, he may wish to invoke the first amendment on the question of sentence. If he is not permitted to rely on the first amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced – potentially very greatly prejudiced – by reason of his nationality.”

The US has been given until 16 April to file its assurances. If it does not do so, leave to appeal will be granted. If it does provide assurances by that date the parties will be invited to file further written submissions on the issue of leave to appeal with another hearing provisionally listed for 20 May.

Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, welcomed the “temporary reprieve” but called on the US to pursue a plea deal.

“The conditionality around the grounds of appeal, which are contingent on the examination of US government assurances that he will not face the death penalty and has the right to free speech, mean the risks to Assange and press freedom remain stark,” she said.

UK court says Assange can't be extradited on espionage charges until US rules out death penalty

SYLVIA HUI and JILL LAWLESS
Updated Tue, March 26, 2024 
 

LONDON (AP) — A British court ruled Tuesday that Julian Assange can’t be extradited to the United States on espionage charges unless U.S. authorities guarantee he won't get the death penalty, giving the WikiLeaks founder a partial victory in his long legal battle over the site's publication of classified American documents.

Two High Court judges said they would grant Assange a new appeal unless U.S. authorities give further assurances within three weeks about what will happen to him. The ruling means the legal saga, which has dragged on for more than a decade, will continue — and Assange will remain inside London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, where he has spent the last five years.

Judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson said the U.S. must guarantee that Assange, who is Australian, “is afforded the same First Amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed.”


The judges said that if the U.S. files new assurances, "we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.” The judges said a hearing will be held May 20 if the U.S. makes those submissions.

The U.S. Justice Department declined to comment Tuesday.

Assange’s supporters say he is a journalist protected by the First Amendment who exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan that was in the public interest.

Assange's wife Stella Assange said the WikiLeaks founder “is being persecuted because he exposed the true cost of war in human lives.”

“The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case, which should never have been brought," she said outside the High Court in London.

The ruling follows a two-day hearing in the High Court in February, where Assange’s lawyer Edward Fitzgerald said American authorities were seeking to punish him for WikiLeaks’ “exposure of criminality on the part of the U.S. government on an unprecedented scale,” including torture and killings.

The U.S. government said Assange’s actions went beyond journalism by soliciting, stealing and indiscriminately publishing classified government documents that endangered many people, including Iraqis and Afghans who had helped U.S. forces.

The judges rejected six of Assange's nine grounds of appeal, including the allegation that his prosecution is political. They said that while Assange “acted out of political conviction … it does not follow however that the request for his extradition is made on account of his political views.”

The judges also said Assange could not appeal based on allegations, made by his lawyers, that the CIA developed plans to kidnap or kill Assange during the years he spent holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, to prevent him from trying to flee.

The judges said “plainly, these are allegations of the utmost seriousness,” but concluded they had no bearing on the extradition request.

“Extradition would result in him being lawfully in the custody of the United States authorities, and the reasons (if they can be called that) for rendition or kidnap or assassination then fall away,” the ruling said.

They accepted three grounds or appeal: the threat to Assange's freedom of speech, Assange's claim that he faces disadvantage because he is not a U.S. citizen, and the risk he could receive the death penalty.

U.S. authorities have promised Assange would not receive capital punishment, but the judges said that "nothing in the existing assurance explicitly prevents the imposition of the death penalty.”

Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange’s lawyers, said that “even if we receive the assurances, we’re not confident we can rely on them.”

Assange, 52, a computer expert, has been indicted in the U.S. on charges over Wikileaks’ publication in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

U.S. prosecutors say he conspired with U.S. army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer and release secret diplomatic cables and military files on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assange faces 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one charge of computer misuse. If convicted, his lawyers say he could receive a prison term of up to 175 years, though American authorities have said any sentence is likely to be much lower.

Assange’s wife and supporters say his physical and mental health have suffered during more than a decade of legal battles and confinement.

“My concerns about the precarious mental health of Julian Assange and his unfitness to be extradited, as well as the potential for him to receive a wholly disproportionate sentence in the United States, have not been assuaged by the court,” said Alice Jill Edwards, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture, an independent expert for the world body.

Assange’s legal troubles began in 2010, when he was arrested in London at the request of Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two women. In 2012, Assange jumped bail and sought refuge inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

The relationship between Assange and his hosts eventually soured, and he was evicted from the embassy in April 2019. British police immediately arrested and imprisoned him for breaching bail in 2012. Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed.

A U.K. district court judge rejected the U.S. extradition request in 2021 on the grounds that Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. Higher courts overturned that decision after getting assurances from the U.S. about his treatment. The British government signed an extradition order in June 2022.

___

Associated Press writers Brian Melley in London and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.


WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange’s US extradition appeal delayed

Nick Gutteridge
Tue, March 26, 2024 

Julian Assange has been fighting for years to avoid being extradited from Britain

Julian Assange’s extradition has been delayed as the High Court ruled the United States must give assurances he will not face the death penalty.

In a judgment on Tuesday morning, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson dismissed most of the WikiLeaks founder’s legal arguments for leave to appeal against an earlier ruling which paved the way for his extradition to the US.

However the judges said that unless assurances were given by the United States he would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds.

These assurances are that Assange would be protected by and allowed to rely on the First Amendment – which protects freedom of speech in the US, that he is not “prejudiced at trial” due to his nationality, and that the death penalty is not imposed.

Assange, 52, has been accused of an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Supporters of Julian Assange gathered outside the High Court in central London - Alberto Pezzali/AP

In their judgment, Dame Victoria and Mr Justice Johnson dismissed most of Assange’s legal arguments but said that he would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds unless assurances were given by the US.

The judges said the US authorities had three weeks to give those assurances, with a final decision to be made in late May.

In a 66-page ruling for the Assange case, Dame Victoria said: “Before making a final decision on the application for leave to appeal, we will give the respondent an opportunity to give assurances.

“If assurances are not given, then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing. If assurances are given, then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.”


Stella Assange said the courts have invited 'a political intervention from the United States' - Stefan Rousseau/PA

Speaking after the judgment, Assange’s wife Stella said: “What the courts have done has been to invite a political intervention from the United States... send a letter saying: ‘It’s all ok.’ I find this astounding.

“This case is a retribution. It is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and will try to kill you.

“The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought.”

At the start of Assange’s bid last month, Mark Summers KC argued the US’s prosecution would be retribution for his political opinions, meaning it would be unlawful to extradite him under UK law.

But Clair Dobbin KC, for the US, said the plans to extradite and prosecute Assange were based on his alleged actions, not his political opinions.

Scores of Assange supporters demonstrated outside the central London court over both days, waving banners and inviting passing drivers to honk their horns.


Julian Assange faces further wait over extradition ruling

Ian Aikman - BBC News
Tue, March 26, 2024 

Mr Assange's lawyers say he faces up to 175 years in US prison, if convicted

The US must provide assurances that Julian Assange will not receive the death penalty if convicted, before a UK court rules on whether he can appeal against his extradition.

The court has adjourned its decision by three weeks to give the US government time to comply.

US authorities say the Wikileaks founder endangered lives by publishing thousands of classified documents.

His lawyers have argued that the case is form of "state retaliation".

In a High Court judgment on Tuesday, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson said that Mr Assange would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds, unless assurances were given by the United States.

These assurances are that the 52-year-old would be protected by and allowed to rely on the First Amendment - which protects freedom of speech in the US; that he would not be "prejudiced at trial" due to his nationality; and that he would not face the death penalty if he is convicted.

Judges have given the US authorities three weeks to make those assurances, with a final hearing potentially taking place on 20 May.

Who is Julian Assange and why is he facing extradition?


Assange's wife says he 'won't survive US extradition'

"If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing," said Dame Victoria in the court's ruling.

"If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal."

However, the judges dismissed some grounds of the application to appeal, including Mr Assange's arguments that he was prosecuted because of his political opinions.

If his latest appeal is not granted, Mr Assange will have exhausted all of his legal avenues in the UK. His remaining option would be to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Speaking to the crowd gathered outside the court, his wife, Stella Assange, described her husband as a "political prisoner".

She urged US President Joe Biden's administration not to submit assurances, and instead to "drop this shameful case".

He is facing espionage charges in the US for publishing hundreds of thousands of leaked classified documents in 2010 and 2011.

During February's hearing, Mr Assange's legal team argued that he was being targeted for his exposure of "state-level crimes" and his punishment was "politically motivated".

But lawyers from the US pushed back, saying that WikiLeaks' actions "put lives at risk".

Stella Assange says she is "astounded" by the court's decision to delay her husband's appeal

Mr Assange's lawyers say he faces up to 175 years in jail if he is convicted. But the US government has previously said a sentence of between four and six years is more likely.

He did not attend the court hearing in February due to ill health. Ahead of the hearing, Mrs Assange said she feared for her husband's safety if he was extradited.

"This case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially," she told the BBC.

In 2021, the High Court ruled that Mr Assange could be extradited, rejecting claims that poor mental health meant he risked taking his own life in US jail.

The UK Supreme Court upheld the decision and the then Home Secretary Priti Patel confirmed the extradition order in 2022.

His lawyers took his case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2022, but it was dismissed without a hearing.

Australia's parliament has passed a motion calling on the UK and US to release Mr Assange, though this has no legal bearing on either government.

Assange wins temporary reprieve from US extradition

Reuters Videos
Updated Tue, March 26, 2024


STORY: A momentary reprieve for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday (March 26), after his extradition to the United States from Britain was put on hold.

London's High Court said the U.S. must provide assurances he would not face the death penalty.

U.S. prosecutors are seeking to put 52-year-old Assange on trial on 18 counts.

They are all, bar one, over WikiLeaks' high-profile release of confidential U.S. military records and diplomatic cables.

Assange's wife, Stella, hailed the decision by the UK court as "astounding".

"Now the UK courts have invited the United States to issue assurances, the Biden administration should not issue assurances, they should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought, Julian should never have been in prison for a single day, this is a shame on every democracy."

Assange's lawyers sought permission in February to challenge Britain's approval of his extradition, part of a more than 13-year legal battle in English courts.

In their ruling, two senior judges said he had a real prospect of successfully appealing against extradition on a number of grounds.

The court said in its written ruling that Assange arguably would not be entitled to rely on the First Amendment right to free speech as a non-U.S. national.

And that, while none of the existing charges carried the death penalty, he could later be charged with a capital offense such as treason, meaning it would be unlawful to extradite him.

The ruling said his case was at least arguable, citing "the calls for the imposition of the death penalty by leading politicians and other public figures."

The judges said Assange had pointed to a comment by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

When discussing WikiLeaks in 2010, he had said, quote, that "I think there should be like a death penalty or something."

The judgment said that if the U.S. assurances were not forthcoming by April 16, then Assange would be granted permission to appeal.

A further hearing has been scheduled for May 20.

That means his extradition has been put on hold - for now, at least.

Assange's many supporters hail him as an anti-establishment hero and journalist who is being persecuted for exposing U.S. wrongdoing and alleged war crimes.

The U.S. says WikiLeaks' revelations put the lives of their agents at risk, and there was no excuse for his criminality.

Timeline of the Assange legal saga as he faces further delay in bid to avoid extradition to the US

SYLVIA HUI
Updated Tue, March 26, 2024 







Stella Assange, wife of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice, in London, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. Two High Court judges said they would grant Assange a new appeal unless U.S. authorities give further assurances about what will happen to him. The case has been adjourned until May 20.
(AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali)


LONDON (AP) — After fighting for more than a decade to avoid being sent to the U.S., WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is facing further delays in learning whether he can make a new legal challenge against his extradition.

Assange, 52, faces charges related to his organization's publication of a huge trove of classified documents. He has been in custody in a high-security London prison since 2019, and previously spent seven years in self-exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

As judges at London’s High Court adjourned his case Tuesday to give U.S. authorities more time to submit assurances about what would happen to him if he is extradited, here is a look at key events in the long-running legal saga:

— 2006: Assange founds WikiLeaks in Australia. The group begins publishing sensitive or classified documents.

— 2010: In a series of posts, WikiLeaks released almost half a million documents relating to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

— August 2010: Swedish prosecutors issue an arrest warrant for Assange based on one woman’s allegation of rape and another’s allegation of molestation. The warrant is withdrawn shortly afterward, with prosecutors citing insufficient evidence for the rape allegation. Assange denies the allegations.

— September 2010: Sweden’s director of prosecutions reopens the rape investigation. Assange leaves Sweden for Britain.

— November 2010: Swedish police issue an international arrest warrant for Assange.

— December 2010: Assange surrenders to police in London and is detained pending an extradition hearing. High Court grants Assange bail.

— February 2011: District court in Britain rules Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

— June 2012: Assange enters Ecuadorian Embassy in central London, seeking asylum on June 19, after his bids to appeal the extradition ruling failed. Police set up round-the-clock guard to arrest him if he steps outside.

— August 2012: Assange is granted political asylum by Ecuador.

— July 2014: Assange loses his bid to have an arrest warrant issued in Sweden against him canceled. A judge in Stockholm upholds the warrant alleging sexual offenses against two women.

— March 2015: Swedish prosecutors ask to question Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy.

— August 2015: Swedish prosecutors drop investigations into some allegations against Assange because of the statute of limitations; an investigation into a rape allegation remains active.

— October 2015: Metropolitan Police end their 24-hour guard outside the Ecuadorian Embassy but say they’ll arrest Assange if he leaves, ending a three-year police operation estimated to have cost millions.

— February 2016: Assange claims “total vindication” as the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention finds that he has been unlawfully detained and recommends he be immediately freed and given compensation. Britain calls the finding “frankly ridiculous.”

— September 2018: Ecuador’s president says his country and Britain are working on a legal solution to allow Assange to leave the embassy.

— October 2018: Assange seeks a court injunction pressing Ecuador to provide him basic rights he said the country agreed to when it first granted him asylum.

— November 2018: A U.S. court filing that appears to inadvertently reveal the existence of a sealed criminal case against Assange is discovered by a researcher. No details are confirmed.

— April 2019: Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno blames WikiLeaks for recent corruption allegations; Ecuador's government revokes Assange's asylum status. London police haul Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest him for breaching bail conditions in 2012, as well as on behalf of U.S. authorities.

— May 2019: Assange is sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for jumping bail in 2012.

— May 2019: The U.S. government indicts Assange on 18 charges over WikiLeaks’ publication of classified documents. Prosecutors say he conspired with U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer and release secret diplomatic cables and military files on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

— November 2019: Swedish prosecutor drops rape investigation.

— May 2020: An extradition hearing for Assange is delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

— June 2020: The U.S. files new indictment against Assange that prosecutors say underscores Assange’s efforts to procure and release classified information.

January 2021: A British judge rules Assange cannot be extradited to the U.S. because he is likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions.

— July 2021: The High Court grants the U.S. government permission to appeal the lower court's ruling blocking Assange's extradition.

— December 2021: The High Court rules that U.S. assurances about Assange's detention are enough to guarantee he would be treated humanely.

— March 2022: Britain’s top court refuses to grant Assange permission to appeal against his extradition.

— June 2022: Britain's government orders the extradition of Assange to the United States. Assange appeals.

— May 2023: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Assange should be released and “nothing is served” by his ongoing incarceration.

— June 2023: A High Court judge rules Assange cannot appeal his extradition.

— Feb. 20, 2024: Assange's lawyers launch a final legal bid to stop his extradition at the High Court.

— March 26, 2024: Two High Court judges in London give U.S. authorities three more weeks to submit further assurances, including a guarantee that Assange won't get the death penalty, before deciding whether they will grant him a new appeal against his extradition.














Stella Assange, wife of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, releases a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice, in London, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. Two High Court judges said they would grant Assange a new appeal unless U.S. authorities give further assurances about what will happen to him. The case has been adjourned until May 20.
(AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali)

Wednesday, April 03, 2024

Julian Assange’s Basic Press Freedoms Are Still in Danger

In granting Julian Assange only the most limited appeal rights, the UK High Court has deliberately closed its eyes to the press freedom issues at stake and shown a grotesque indifference to Assange’s basic human rights.
March 31, 2024
Source: Jacobin


Julian Assange, 2014. CancillerĂ­a del Ecuador, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

On March 26, 2022, the UK High Court issued a decision about whether journalist Julian Assange could appeal his extradition to the United States. The United States is seeking to put the WikiLeaks founder and Australian journalist on trial for exposing US war crimes and abuses of power. After a nearly five-year legal process, during which a UK judge blocked Assange’s extradition only for a higher court to reverse, the UK High Court in February held two days of hearings on whether Assange had the right to appeal his extradition on a myriad of grounds, including press freedom and free expression concerns. Had the court rejected Assange’s right to appeal, it would have foreclosed any further options for the journalist to fight his extradition before the UK judiciary.

During two days of hearings in February, the British judges presiding over the case seemed to express concern about the possibility that the United States could argue Assange lacked First Amendment rights as a foreign national and the United States’ lack of assurances that it would not seek the death penalty against him. As a result, unsurprisingly, they granted Assange the right to appeal based on these issues.

While the UK High Court has halted Assange’s extradition for now, there is grave cause for alarm. Assange’s lawyers sought to appeal the extradition on nine separate grounds. The UK High Court granted limited appeal rights on three very narrow grounds. In doing so, it dismissed the bulk of Assange’s serious free expression arguments.

It is these concerns that have led press freedom and human rights groups, mainstream newspapers, and even the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression to oppose Assange’s prosecution. In spite of the global outcry about how this case imperils press freedom rights, the UK High Court seemed unable or unwilling to recognize the grave press freedom issues at stake.

On top of that, the court has allowed the United States to potentially sidestep an appeal altogether if it offers assurances that it will not seek the death penalty against Assange or deny him First Amendment rights based on his nationality. This would be the second time in this convoluted legal process that the United States has been allowed to rescue its defective extradition request by granting assurances.

The worst-case scenario for Assange has not yet come true. But ultimately the court’s ruling is a grim one for press freedom.
Security and Speech

Two of the grounds of appeal granted to Assange center on concerns that Assange could be denied First Amendment rights because he is a foreign national. Such a situation would both see Assange subjected to prejudice based on his nationality and deprived of any free expression rights. This fear was not concocted out of thin air. It is based on the statements the lead US prosecutor voluntarily submitted to the UK judiciary.

Throughout the extradition proceeding, US Attorney Gordon Kromberg, the lead prosecutor in the case, has provided the court with a number of sworn declarations. Kromberg is a notorious figure. He has been accused of politically motivated prosecutions and bias against Muslims. In addition to leading the Assange prosecution, he also prosecuted drone whistleblower Daniel Hale. I was present in court for Hale’s sentencing, and Kromberg’s animosity for the courageous whistleblower was clear: at one point, Kromberg compared Hale to a heroin dealer.

The goal of Kromberg’s declarations is to show that Assange’s case is not political, and that Assange would be treated fairly in a US court. To illustrate this point, in a June 2020 declaration, Kromberg argued that if Assange were to be extradited to the United States, he would have the opportunity to challenge the indictment before “independent federal judges.” Kromberg preemptively listed out the types of challenges Assange and his defense team may make. They could argue, according to Kromberg, that Assange was the victim of selective prosecution, that his conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague.

As the lead prosecutor in this and other Espionage Act cases, Kromberg wanted to make clear that “the United States has arguments against these potential challenges to the superseding indictment, and does not believe that they would have any merit; otherwise, it would not have proceeded with the charges.” One such defense? Kromberg wrote, “Concerning any First Amendment challenge, the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment, at least as it concerns national defense information”

The intent of Kromberg’s declaration was to show how Assange would receive fair treatment in the United States, thus paving the way for his extradition. By stating the US government might attempt to deprive him of fundamental human rights protections on the basis that he wasn’t a US citizen, the veteran national security prosecutor achieved the opposite result.

The UK Court granted Assange two separate potential points of appeal based on Kromberg’s blunder. First, Assange can appeal on the grounds that he would be subjected to prejudicial treatment as a foreign national. Second, if the First Amendment may not apply to Assange, Assange can appeal the extradition on the basis that it violates the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantee of free expression.

When it comes to Article 10’s right to free expression, Assange’s defense proffered a much wider, more robust range of arguments. They argued that Assange exposed war crimes and faces prosecution for doing so. Under European human rights law, they also argued, Chelsea Manning is a whistleblower, and those who expose state criminality deserve protections.

Assange was only granted the right to appeal based on Article 10 in relation to Kromberg’s comments. When it comes to the broad issue of whether prosecuting a journalist for reporting on war crimes revealed by a whistleblower is a flagrant violation of free expression rights, the UK High Court denied Assange’s right to appeal. In doing so, it displayed a shocking contempt for journalism.

The court argued that the European Court of Human Rights rulings “do not support the proposition advanced by the applicant that whistle-blowers or journalists have an immunity from prosecution in respect of criminal conduct in the course of journalistic activities.” This statement is, of course, at face value, true. Yet saying a journalist cannot commit crimes is different than criminalizing journalism itself.

The UK High Court seems to find little about the Assange prosecution troubling from a free expression perspective. Assange faces eighteen felony counts. Seventeen of the counts were brought under the Espionage Act and concern information given to WikiLeaks by whistleblower Manning about war crimes and abuses of power. Press freedom and human rights groups have been universal in their rejection of the Espionage Act charges.

Yet according to the UK High Court, only three of the charges brought against Assange “directly concern freedom of expression.” The remaining fifteen allegations “are of what may be described as ordinary criminal offences.” Of the charges where the court found a free expression nexus — publishing the Iraq and Afghanistan significant activity reports and the State Department cables — the Court argued that since these documents contained the names of individuals who shared information with the US government, there was no strong public interest in publishing them.

The UK High Court accepted, based on declarations from Kromberg, that in prosecuting Assange for three of the most consequential and groundbreaking publications about US foreign policy in history — the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and Cablegate — the United States is really pursuing a narrow interest in protecting the safety of foreigners who share information with the United States.

This analysis is glaringly wrong for a number of reasons. These publications, which major newspapers around the world participated in, absolutely were in the public interest. There is no evidence from anyone, including the US military, that any harm was done to anyone as a result of these publications, which were clearly in the public interest.

And Assange and WikiLeaks were far from reckless. Multiple media partners testified during the initial extradition hearing about WikiLeaks’s stringent redaction and larger information security policies. John Goetz, an investigative journalist who represented Der Spiegel in their media partnership with WikiLeaks, explained that while working on the Afghan War Diary, Assange agreed to vet documents for their potential to cause harm to individuals. WikiLeaks delayed the release of fifteen thousand pages of documents as part of a harm minimization process. Goetz described the security measures taken as the most stringent he ever encountered as a journalist.

When it came to the Iraq War Logs, WikiLeaks took even more stringent precautions to redact the names of informants. John Sloboda of the Iraq Body Count testified during the original extradition hearing how his organization developed a computer program for WikiLeaks to redact informants’ names in the four hundred thousand pages of documents. Wikileaks were so insistent on redactions, it annoyed their partners in the mainstream media, who were upset it was slowing down publications. Another WikiLeaks media partner, Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, also testified that the precautions were the strictest she had ever encountered as a journalist, noting that not even her colleagues working on stories about the Italian mafia had ever adopted such strict security protocols.

By point of historical comparison, the copies of the Pentagon Papers given by Daniel Ellsberg to the media did contain unredacted names of intelligence sources and even a CIA officer. Ellsberg believed — correctly — that the public interest in releasing the Pentagon Papers outweighed these concerns.

When a breakdown in security occurred, it was not WikiLeaks but their media partners who caused it. With the State Department documents, WikiLeaks continued its policy of strict redactions to protect informants and tight information security. A Guardian reporter published the password to the encrypted files as a chapter title in his book. This set off a series of convoluted events whereby individuals online were able to access the entire document set. Assange and WikiLeaks notified the State Department, but its officials showed no interest in engaging with him.

Only after other websites published the complete, unredacted State Department cables did WikiLeaks follow suit. None of these publishers have been indicted under the Espionage Act, even though the editor of Cryptome, the first site to publish the unredacted cables, has taken the unusual step of asking the government to indict him. If the government was concerned solely with informants’ names, it would have pursued those who first published them.

The court found that because the US First Amendment so closely resembles Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights that its existence and Assange’s ability to rely on it means Assange’s extradition doesn’t violate Article 10. This, of course, depends on the United States not arguing Assange has no First Amendment rights.

On other political expression grounds, the High Court also denied Assange the right to appeal on the basis that he was persecuted for his political opinions or that he was being extradited for a political offense. The US-UK Extradition treaty bars extradition for political offenses, but a 2003 UK extradition law omits the language. According to the High Court that means judges cannot weigh the issue. By this logic, a judge must order an extradition that clearly contravenes the language of the treaty.
Attempted Murder

The other issue that most alarmed the judges during February’s hearings was the lack of death penalty assurances. None of the charges against Assange carry the death penalty. Although it is not impossible that the United States could pursue new death penalty charges, it is a very remote possibility. During February’s hearing, Assange’s defense outlined several scenarios under which the United States could pursue death penalty charges. When British prosecutors, who under UK extradition law represent the United States in court during extradition proceedings, were asked about this, they asserted the defense’s theories were correct. They further stated that under such a circumstance, the UK government would be powerless to stop the United States.

UK law forbids the government from extraditing someone if they might face the death penalty. The law here is clear-cut. As a result, it is unsurprising that the High Court granted Assange the right to appeal on the death penalty.

While the Court showed concern about the death penalty, it was shockingly indifferent to the US government’s extrajudicial plots on Assange’s life. The High Court expressly prohibited Assange from raising fresh evidence about CIA plots to assassinate or kidnap him during a potential appeal. During the original extradition hearing, the court heard from multiple witnesses from Spanish security contractor UC Global. The witnesses detailed how the company spied on Assange and plotted to kidnap or poison him. In their belief, these actions were taken at the behest of the CIA. These allegations are the subject of a criminal investigation in Spain.

Since the original hearing, Yahoo! News reported on the existence of CIA plots against Assange, including how the CIA considered (but ruled out) assassinating Assange. Whereas the hearing testimony had come from UC Global employees, the Yahoo! News report was based on insiders within the US government.

Assange’s defense has correctly asserted that this is further proof of the assassination plot against him. The UK High Court doesn’t reject this; it just doesn’t care. Their reasoning for denying fresh evidence is precisely because this “fresh evidence is similar to the evidence that was before the judge.” The judges admit they find the evidence presented credible, and that it “is of the utmost seriousness.”

If the plot to assassinate Assange was “connected to his extradition,” it would be a barrier to his extradition. Yet the High Court agreed that it wasn’t an issue, on the most absurd reasoning. “Extradition would result in him being lawfully in the custody of the United States authorities,” the Court wrote, “and the reasons (if they can be called that) for rendition or kidnap or assassination then fall away.” Thus it is okay to extradite Assange to the country that plotted to murder him.

And the judges do not want to hear anything more about the plots against him.
Empty Assurances

Although Assange has been granted leave to appeal on these extremely narrow grounds, an appeal might not happen. The High Court has granted leave to appeal only if the United States does not offer additional assurances. If the United States can guarantee that Assange “is permitted to rely on the First Amendment,” that the case against Assange is not prejudiced at trial (including sentencing) by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty will not be imposed, then there will be no appeal, as long as the court finds the assurances satisfactory (Assange’s lawyers will have the right to challenge the assurances).

Most of the assurances are fairly straightforward. Given that the United States is not seeking the death penalty against Assange and has given similar assurances not to seek the death penalty against Edward Snowden in the past, it seems likely it will comply.

The most complicated assurance to parse is what it means for Assange to be able to “rely on the First Amendment.” In a criminal trial, the First Amendment would come into play in a number of ways. The defense can challenge a statute as either being unconstitutional in and of itself, or argue that although a statute itself is constitutional, its application in a specific case is unconstitutional. Often in criminal trials, the defense will mount both arguments: the statute is unconstitutional and should be struck down in its entirety, but even if it is constitutional, in this case it is being applied in an unconstitutional manner. In the US legal system, such questions are considered questions of law for a judge, not a jury, to decide.

Additionally, even if a statute or specific charge isn’t dismissed, the defense could argue that if the government wishes to convict Assange for pure speech, it must prove a high degree of intent. Such a requirement would be reflected in any instructions the judge gave the jury on what the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Assange.

Unless a US trial takes place, we do not know what Assange’s lawyers will or will not argue. However, given the fact that Assange and his legal team have always stressed the press freedom and free expression issues with his prosecution, it doesn’t require clairvoyance or even a bold prediction to suggest that they will probably fight the prosecution on the basis of the First Amendment.

Assange is the first publisher indicted under the Espionage Act. But in the past, government insiders who acted as whistleblowers or journalists’ sources have been indicted. Citing the First Amendment, they have moved to have their charges dismissed outright or argued that the government must prove the defendant had a “a specific intent or evil purpose.” In all of these cases, courts have rejected these arguments, absurdly finding there are no First Amendment issues with prosecuting government employees who aided in news gathering.

As a publisher, not a whistleblower, Assange’s case is different. But the question arises: Would the UK High Court believe the aforementioned defendants were able to “rely” on the First Amendment? The government did not challenge whether the defendants had First Amendment rights, but instead argued the First Amendment did not protect their whistleblowing. They were able to raise First Amendment arguments, but judges rejected them.

In my reading of the UK High Court’s decision, it only requires a US court to take into account the First Amendment, not rule that it protects Assange’s clear journalistic activity. When denying the bulk of Assange’s free expression arguments, the court ruled the judges were making their findings on the assumption that, contrary to Kromberg’s declaration, Assange would have the same rights as a US citizen. Only when dealing with the potential that Assange would be granted no protections as a foreign national did the court find a problem. In his declaration, Kromberg mentioned other potential arguments that the government would raise in response to Assange’s potential First Amendment claims. Not only did the UK High Court not object to them, the judges mimicked them in their own dismal finding that the charges against Assange didn’t pose a threat to his free expression rights.

A cynical interpretation is that the UK High Court was ready and willing to rubber-stamp the persecution of a journalist for exposing war crimes. The unnecessary comments of Kromberg that the government may argue Assange lacked First Amendment rights as a foreign national and UK prosecutors’ bumbling replies to questions about the death penalty made it impossible for them to do so. Now, with the request for assurances, its judges are instructing United States and UK prosecutors on what they must say in order to make the extradition succeed.
Global Stakes

Any day Assange is granted another chance to fight for his life, his personal freedom, and the rights of press freedom and free expression is ultimately a good day. But the UK High Court’s decision, while not the worst scenario, is deeply disturbing. In granting Assange only the most limited appeal rights, they deliberately closed their eyes to the press freedom issues at stake and showed a grotesque indifference to Assange’s basic human rights. The invitation for the United States to grant assurances to prevent an appeal also is troubling.

There are dire human stakes to Assange’s case. But his case is ultimately bigger than just one person. Global press freedom rights are at stake. For those who do not wish to live in a world where journalists can be whisked across borders so that the governments whose crimes they exposed can put them on trial, the situation could not be more urgent.


UK Court Gives Biden Chance to Dodge Assange Appeal by “Assuring” His Rights

The WikiLeaks publisher could be extradited if the US gives “satisfactory assurances” of rights and no death penalty.

March 30, 2024
Source: Truthout


Image by Duncan Cumming via Flickr

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is closer than ever to being extradited to the United States for trial on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion over WikiLeaks’s 2010-2011 revelation of evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and GuantĂ¡namo Bay. He faces 175 years in prison.

“This is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and they will try to kill you,” said Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, of his prosecution.

On March 26, the United Kingdom Divisional Court denied Assange the opportunity to make most of his appellate arguments. But the two-judge panel of Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp left open the possibility that Assange could appeal on three grounds. They found that Assange “has a real prospect of success” on the following issues: If extradited to the U.S., he will be denied the right to freedom of expression, will suffer discrimination because he’s not a U.S. citizen and could be sentenced to death.

Rather than simply allowing Assange to argue the three issues on appeal, however, the panel gave the Biden administration an out. If the U.S. provides the court with “satisfactory assurances” that Assange won’t be denied any of these rights, his extradition to the U.S. can proceed without an appeals hearing.

Stella Assange called the decision “astounding,” adding, “The court’s recognized that Julian has been exposed to flagrant denial of his freedom of expression rights, that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his nationality and that he remains exposed to the death penalty.”

At an earlier stage in this case, the U.S. gave the U.K. High Court “assurances” that Assange would be treated humanely if extradited. That caused the court to reverse the magistrate judge’s denial of extradition (which was based on the likelihood of suicide if Assange is held in harsh U.S. confinement). The High Court accepted those assurances at face value in spite of the U.S.’s history of reneging on similar assurances.

The current ruling, however, requires U.S. assurances to be “satisfactory” and the defense will have an opportunity to challenge them at a hearing.

“Mr. Assange will not, therefore, be extradited immediately,” the panel wrote, implying that if they had denied his appeal outright, the U.K. authorities would put him on a plane to the U.S. forthwith. They gave the U.S. three weeks to come forward with satisfactory assurances.

If the U.S. fails to provide any assurances, Assange will be granted a hearing on the three grounds. If the U.S. does give assurances, a hearing to decide whether they are satisfactory will occur on May 20.

“The Biden administration should not offer assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought,” Stella Assange said.

These are the grounds the High Court will review if the U.S. fails to provide “satisfactory assurances”:
1. Extradition Would Violate Freedom of Expression Guaranteed by Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights

Assange would argue at trial that his actions were protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence,” the panel concluded.

The First Amendment provides “strong protection” to freedom of expression, similar to that provided by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the panel noted. Article 10 (1) of the convention says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Assange’s trial would be held, said the prosecution might argue at trial that “foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment,” the panel noted. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that Assange “has no First Amendment freedoms” because “he is not a U.S. citizen.”

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2020 case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International that “it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside United States territory do not possess rights under the US Constitution.”

The panel wrote that if Assange “is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment, then it is arguable that his extradition would be incompatible with article 10 of the Convention.”

But even if the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors give “satisfactory assurances” that Assange’s First Amendment rights would be protected, that is no guarantee. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch, which cannot bind the judicial branch due to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

“The ruling reveals that the High Court does not understand the American system of government,” Stephen Rohde, who practiced First Amendment law for almost 50 years and writes extensively about the Assange case, told Truthout. “It only has before it the executive branch of the U.S. government. Whatever ‘satisfactory assurances’ the Department of Justice may give the High Court, they are not binding on the judicial branch.”

Moreover, Rohde said, “The High Court is obligated to uphold Assange’s rights to ‘freedom of expression’ under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects Assange even if the U.S. courts refuse to do so. The only way to do that is to deny extradition.”
2. The U.K. Extradition Act Forbids Discrimination Based on Nationality

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who would be tried in the U.S. if the Biden administration’s pursuit of extradition is successful.

Section 81(b) of the U.K. Extradition Act says that extradition is barred for an individual who “might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his … nationality.”

Due to the centrality of the First Amendment to Assange’s defense, the panel noted, “If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced (potentially very greatly prejudiced) by reason of his nationality.”
3. Extradition Is Barred by Inadequate Death Penalty Protection Required by the Extradition Act

Section 94 of the U.K. Extradition Act says, “The Secretary of State must not order a person’s extradition … if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence” in the receiving state. That limitation does not apply if a written “assurance” that is “adequate” says “that a sentence of death- (a) will not be imposed, or (b) will not be carried out (if imposed).”

None of the charges that Assange is currently facing carry the death penalty. But if extradited to the U.S., he could be charged with aiding and abetting treason or espionage, both of which are capital offenses.

Ben Watson KC, secretary of state for the Home Department, admitted that:


a.) The facts alleged against [Assange] could sustain a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.

b.) If [Assange] is extradited, there is nothing to prevent a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or a charge of espionage, from being added to the indictment.

c.) The death penalty is available on conviction for aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.

d.) There are no arrangements in place to prevent the imposition of the death penalty.

e.) The existing assurance does not explicitly prevent the imposition of the death.

The panel noted that when former President Donald Trump was asked about WikiLeaks publishing the leaked documents, he said, “I think it was disgraceful…. I think there should be like a death penalty or something.” If Trump is reelected, he may seek to ensure that his Justice Department adds capital charges to the indictment.

In concluding that Assange could raise this issue on appeal subject to “satisfactory assurances,” the panel cited “the potential, on the facts, for capital charges to be laid; the calls for the imposition of the death penalty by leading politicians and other public figures; the fact that the Treaty does not preclude extradition for death penalty charges, and the fact that the existing assurance does not explicitly cover the death penalty.”
Appeal Grounds Denied by Panel

Remaining grounds for appeal that Assange requested were denied by the panel. They include prosecution for a political offense, prosecution based on political opinion; violation of right to a fair trial; violation of right to life; and violation of right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, since no publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing government secrets, Assange could not have known it was a crime.

The panel also ruled that Assange could not introduce new evidence adduced after the magistrate judge’s ruling. This includes a Yahoo News report detailing the CIA’s plan to kidnap and kill Assange when he was living under a grant of asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

If the U.S. offers “satisfactory assurances” and extradition is ordered, Assange could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and raise these additional issues as well.

Meanwhile, there is a possibility that instead of filing “assurances,” the Biden administration will opt to avoid the political pitfalls of Assange’s extradition to the U.S. and offer a plea bargain to end the case.



Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. A prominent scholar and lecturer, her books include Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law; and Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues She provides commentary for local, regional, national and international media and is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio.

Wednesday, October 27, 2021

 

Opinion: It's well past time to free Julian Assange

A London court is set to rule on whether to overturn a decision not to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the US. Rebecca Vincent from RSF argues if the UK and the US care about media freedom, Assange needs to be freed.

   

Julian Assange is still being held in London's high-security Belmarsh prison

Wednesday marks perhaps the most important momentyet in the case against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. From October 27-28, the High Court in London will consider the US government's appeal against the January decision opposing Assange's extradition to the US, where he would face trial on 18 charges that could land him in a supermax prison for the rest of his life — all for publishing information in the public interest.

The US government will be allowedto appeal on five specific grounds, following the High Court's decision to widen the scope of the appeal in a preliminary hearing on August 11, which now includes the US government's attempts to discredit a key witness who testified on the state of Assange's mental health, as well as other narrow, more technical grounds.

My organization, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), welcomed the decision opposing extradition, but criticized the substance of the ruling, which was based only on mental health grounds. We share the serious concerns about Assange's mental health, and for this reason have stated that his extradition to the US is a possible matter of life or death.

However, the court failed to take a strong position in favor of journalism and press freedom, which we fear leaves the door open to future similar prosecutions against publishers, journalists and sources.

Rebecca Vincent

Rebecca Vincent is director of international campaigns at RSF

Targeted for his contribution to journalism

We fully believe that Assange has been targeted for his contributions to journalism, as WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of leaked classified documents - the basis of the US charges - informed extensive public interest reporting by media around the world, exposing war crimes and human rights violations.

We continue to call for the charges against Assange to be dropped, and for him to be immediately released and certainly not extradited to the US. Assange's extradition and prosecution would have severe and long-lasting implications for journalism and press freedom around the world; the impact simply cannot be understated.

RSF is the only nongovernmental organization (NGO) that has monitored the entire extradition proceedings to date, but it has not been easy, due to severe restrictions on observation imposed by the court.

We were hoping to once again be present in court to monitor the historic extradition appeal hearing and analyze and report on proceedings. However, shortly before publication - the morning of the hearing - we were still fighting for court access.

 This, unfortunately, is par for the course in a case in which, as I keep repeating, nothing is normal.

During the first-instance proceedings - held for a week in February 2020 and a full four weeks in September 2020, with the decision given in a January 4 hearing - the district judge refused to recognize professional NGO observers as having any role different to the public.


Assange is wanted in the US on espionage charges and for leaking classified documents

It left us having to fight for very few spaces in the public gallery, which involved queuing for several hours each morning to even get into court, with a range of other ludicrous issues further impacting our ability to monitor — ranging from additional seats being held back for mysterious VIPs who never materialized, to a broken buzzing lighting fixture making it difficult to even hear proceedings.

Barriers to observation in UK courts

Even with COVID restrictions in place, I have been allowed into court in Malta to monitor proceedings connected to the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, and in Turkey to monitor the murder trial of Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi, without any access issues.

It is only in the UK that I have faced such extensive and constantly evolving barriers to observation — an experience shared by my RSF colleagues from other country offices who have also been involved in our monitoring efforts.

These access issues, along with the UK's continued detention of Assange in the high-security Belmarsh prison in London for no reason other than the fact that the US is pursuing its appeal, are only serving to tarnish the UK's international reputation.

If the UK government means what it says in its stated commitment to championing media freedom globally, it must lead by example, which it is failing spectacularly to do in this case.

US, UK should champion press freedom

Continuing to pursue the legal case against Assange also serves as a thorn in the side of the US government at a time when the Biden administration is actively seeking to reclaim a role for the US as an international leader on human rights and freedom of expression.


Protesters believe the UK and the US are compromising their position as role models for press freedom

RSF recently joined a coalition of 25 press freedom, civil liberties and international human rights organizations in calling again on the US Department of Justice to drop the charges and close the case once and for all.

It is our hope that this week's proceedings will serve as the end of the decadelong persecution of Julian Assange, and prevent further harm to his well-being, but also to journalism and press freedom globally.

For as long as this continues, a clear and damaging signal is being sent to those who wish to silence critical reporting around the world, that the very states who are looked to as standard-setters are also capable of such acts themselves. It's well past time to put a stop to this travesty.

Rebecca Vincent is director of international campaigns for Reporters Without Borders, known internationally by its French name, Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF).

Assange supporters gather in London as US challenges extradition block in UK court

Issued on: 27/10/2021 - 



The US government will on Wednesday appeal against a British judge's decision to block the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to face trial for publishing military secrets. At a two-day hearing, Washington will ask the High Court to overturn District Judge Vanessa Baraitser's January ruling that Assange is a serious suicide threat if extradited across the Atlantic. FRANCE 24's Bénédicte Paviot reports from London.

Hero or criminal? Who is Julian Assange and what does he stand for

Issued on: 27/10/2021 - 

Video by: Camille NEDELEC

Lawyers for the United States will launch a fresh attempt on Wednesday to have Julian Assange extradited from Britain, arguing that concerns around the WikiLeaks founder's mental health should not prevent him from facing US justice. The 50-year-old Australian is wanted in the United States on 18 criminal charges, including breaking a spying law, after his group published thousands of secret classified files and diplomatic cables in 2010.

Julian Assange: US pursues extradition at UK High Court

Washington has appealed a ruling that kept WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from being sent to the US, where he faces espionage charges and potentially a lifetime in prison.

    

Supporters of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange say his charges are politically motivated

The US government on Wednesday launched an appeal against a British judge's decision to block the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Washington is seeking to bring Assange to the US to face trial for publishing military secrets.

Why is the Assange case back in court now?

UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against extradition in January, after determining that it was unclear that the US would be able to ensure Assange's safety in its prison system, which she said was known for "harsh conditions."

She rejected US experts' testimony that Assange would be protected from self-harm, noting that others such as disgraced US financier Jeffrey Epstein had managed to kill themselves while in custody.

Washington expressed "extreme disappointment" with Baraitser's decision, saying the judge "didn't appreciate the weight" of expert evidence that Assange was not at risk of suicide. 

The US argued Baraitser was "misled" by Assange's psychiatric expert Michael Kopelman, who they claim concealed information such as that his client had fathered children while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Washington is now asking the UK's High Court to overturn the ruling during the new two-day hearing.

US says Assange would not face supermax jail

The US argued on Wednesday that Assange would not be held at a federal supermax prison.

Lawyer James Lewis, representing the US government, said Asssange would not be held either before or after his trial at the notorious prison.

He also said Assange "will receive any such clinical and psychological treatment as is recommended" and that he would eventually be able to apply for a prisoner transfer to his native Australia.

"There has never been a previous breach of an assurance," Lewis argued.

But Assange's team said those assurances could not entirely rule out the chance of him being detained at the facility, at a "comparable" federal prison or a state-level supermax jail. They also argued that Australia had not agreed to take him, and even if they did, the extradition process could take a decade, during which time he would be held in solitary confinement.

The US also argued that Assange did not meet the threshold of being so ill that he cannot resist harming himself.

Lewis said Assange did "not even come close to having an illness of this degree."

Assange's lawyers responded, accusing US lawyers of seeking to "minimize the severity of Mr Assange's mental disorder and suicide risk."

What does the US accuse Assange of?

The WIkiLeaks founder is wanted in the US on charges relating to the 2010 release by WikiLeaks of 500,000 secret files detailing information about the Afghanistan and Iraq military campaigns.

Assange was indicted for violating the US espionage act and for hacking. That was based on the alleged assistance he provided former military intelligence officer Chelsea Manning, who obtained the documents from secure military computer systems.

He faces a maximum sentence of 175 years in jail for the alleged crimes.

The 50-year-old Australian national had spent seven years inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced allegations of sexual assault.

Ecuador had granted him citizenship to bolster his stay at the embassy but after several years, relations with Ecuadorian authorities became strained

Even though the Swedish charges were dropped, he was ultimately removed from the embassy and arrested in 2019 in the UK on charges of skipping bail.

Although his extradition has been blocked, he has been denied bail pending the outcome of the US appeal, after being considered a flight risk.

Rights groups on the Assange case

Journalism organizations and human rights groups have called on US authorities to drop the charges against Assange and urged British authorities to release him immediately.

Wikileaks supporters say claims the CIA spied on Assange during his stay at the embassy suggest he will not receive a fair trial.

Amnesty International highlighted an investigation by Yahoo News revealing that US security services considered kidnapping or killing Assange when he was living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said the report had "cast even more doubt on the reliability of US promises and further expose the political motivation behind this case." 

"It is a damning indictment that nearly 20 years on, virtually no one responsible for alleged US war crimes committed in the course of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has been held accountable, let alone prosecuted, and yet a publisher who exposed such crimes is potentially facing a lifetime in jail," she added.

US says Assange could go to Australian prison if convicted
By JILL LAWLESS

1 of 15
A woman wears a Free Assange badge as supporters of Julian Assange stage a demonstration outside the High Court in London, Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2021. The U.S. government is scheduled to ask Britain's High Court to overturn a judge's decision that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be sent to the United States to face espionage charges. A lower court judge refused extradition in January on health grounds, saying Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions.
 (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

LONDON (AP) — U.S. authorities launched a new battle on Wednesday to make Julian Assange face American justice, telling British judges that if they agree to extradite the WikiLeaks founder on espionage charges, he could serve any U.S. prison sentence he receives in his native Australia.

In January, a lower U.K. court refused a U.S. request to extradite Assange over WikiLeaks’ publication of secret American military documents a decade ago. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that Assange, who has spent years in hiding and in British prisons as he fights extradition, was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions.

Appealing against that decision at the High Court in London, an attorney for the U.S. government on Wednesday denied that Assange’s mental health was too fragile to withstand the U.S. judicial system. Lawyer James Lewis said Assange “has no history of serious and enduring mental illness” and does not meet the threshold of being so ill that he cannot resist harming himself.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison, although Lewis said “the longest sentence ever imposed for this offense is 63 months.”

Lewis said American authorities had promised that Assange would not be held before trial in a top-security “Supermax” prison or subjected to strict isolation conditions, and if convicted would be allowed to serve his sentence in Australia. Lewis said the assurances “are binding on the United States.”

“Once there is an assurance of appropriate medical care, once it is clear he will be repatriated to Australia to serve any sentence, then we can safely say the district judge would not have decided the relevant question in the way that she did,” he said.

The U.S. also says a key defense witness, neuropsychiatrist Michael Kopelman, misled the previous judge by omitting to mention that Stella Moris, a member of WikiLeaks’ legal team, was also Assange’s partner and had two children with him. Lewis said that information was “a highly relevant factor to the question of likelihood to suicide.”

Assange’s lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald, accused U.S. lawyers of seeking to “minimize the severity of Mr Assange’s mental disorder and suicide risk.”

Fitzgerald said in a written submission that Australia has not yet agreed to take Assange if he is convicted. Even if Australia did agree, Fitzgerald said the U.S. legal process could take a decade, “during which Mr. Assange will remain detained in extreme isolation in a U.S. prison.”

Assange, who is being held at London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, had been expected to attend the two-day hearing by video link, but Fitzgerald said Assange had been put on a high dose of medication and “doesn’t feel able to attend.”

Assange later appeared on the video link at times, seated at a table in a prison room wearing a black face mask.

Since WikiLeaks began publishing classified documents more than a decade ago, Assange has become a flashpoint figure. Some see him as a dangerous secret-spiller who endangered the lives of informers and others who helped the U.S. in war zones. Others say WikiLeaks shone a light on official malfeasance that governments would like to keep secret.

American prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published. Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment freedom of speech protections for publishing documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Several dozen pro-Assange protesters held a boisterous rally outside London’s neo-Gothic Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday, calling the prosecution politically motivated. They urged U.S. President Joe Biden to drop the legal proceedings, which were begun under his predecessor, Donald Trump.

The demonstrators included Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who said Assange’s case “relates to our society, it relates to our freedom of expression, it relates to our individual human rights, and we have to watch the government.”

WikiLeaks supporters say testimony from witnesses during the extradition hearing that Assange was spied on while in Ecuador’s embassy in London by a Spanish security firm at the behest of the CIA — and that there was even talk of abducting or killing him — undermines U.S. claims he will be treated fairly.

The two justices hearing the appeal — one is England’s most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett — are not expected to give their ruling for several weeks. The losing side could seek to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court.

Assange, 50, has been in prison since he was arrested in April 2019 for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that he spent seven years holed up inside Ecuador’s London embassy, where he fled in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed. The judge who blocked extradition in January ordered that he must stay in custody during any U.S. appeal, ruling that the Australian citizen “has an incentive to abscond” if he is freed.

Outside court, Moris said it was “completely unthinkable that the U.K. courts could agree” to extradition.

“I hope the courts will end this nightmare, that Julian is able to come home soon and that wise heads prevail,” she said.

___

Associated Press writer David Keyton contributed.


US to appeal British judge's decision to block Assange extradition


Issued on: 27/10/2021 -

The US is appealing against a decision by a UK court not to extradite the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange © Justin Tallis, AFP

Text by: NEWS WIRES

The US government will on Wednesday appeal against a British judge's decision to block the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to face trial for publishing military secrets.

At a two-day hearing, Washington will ask the High Court to overturn District Judge Vanessa Baraitser's January ruling that Assange is a serious suicide threat if extradited across the Atlantic.

The United States has said it was "extremely disappointed" at her decision, arguing the judge "didn't appreciate the weight" of expert evidence that said Assange was not at risk of suicide.

Its lawyers have argued Baraitser was "misled" in evidence from Assange's psychiatric expert Michael Kopelman, who they claim concealed things such as that his client had fathered children while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

During a preliminary hearing in August, the High Court granted the US government's request to appeal against the ruling on five grounds.

Whatever the court's two senior judges decide, months if not years of further legal wrangling loom.

If the US appeal is successful, the case will be sent back to a lower court for a new decision. And whoever loses can also ask for permission for a further, final appeal to the UK's Supreme Court.

Indicted


Assange, 50, was arrested in Britain in 2019 for jumping bail after spending seven years inside the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden where he faced allegations of sexual assault. These were later dropped.

Despite his extradition being blocked, he has been denied bail pending the outcome of the US appeal, amid fears he would abscond.

He is being held at London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, which his fiancee Stella Moris -- a former member of his legal team who is the mother of his two young boys -- this week branded "a terrible environment".

Assange is wanted in Washington to face 18 charges relating to the 2010 release by WikiLeaks of 500,000 secret files detailing aspects of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He has been indicted for violating the US espionage act and for hacking, based on the alleged assistance he provided former military intelligence officer Chelsea Manning in obtaining the documents from secure military computer systems.

If convicted in the US, he faces a maximum sentence of 175 years in jail.

Baraitser had said it was not clear that Washington would be able to ensure his safety in US prisons known for "harsh conditions" while he awaited trial.

She rejected US experts' testimony that Assange would be protected from self-harm, noting that others such as disgraced US financier Jeffrey Epstein had managed to kill themselves in custody.

'Not survive'


Australian national Assange has a vocal campaign of supporters, led by Moris and his legal team.

Moris said on Monday that she had visited Assange in prison last weekend and was shocked by how thin he looked.

"He was looking very unwell," she said. "The point was that Julian would not survive extradition, that was the conclusion of the judge."

Legal expert Carl Tobias, from the University of Richmond in Virginia, said there was "some chance" of the US winning its appeal.

"The US may be able to convince the High Court that Baraitser assigned too much weight" to the Kopelman report, he told AFP.

"However, even if the High Court agrees with the US contention that she accorded too substantial weight to the expert report, that may not be sufficient to warrant overruling her entire decision," he added.

Advocacy group Reporters Without Borders has urged President Joe Biden to drop the case, arguing the WikiLeaks founder has been "targeted for his contributions to public-interest reporting".

Assange sought, but failed, to obtain a pardon from Biden's predecessor Donald Trump, whose 2016 election campaign benefited from WikiLeaks' release of materials that damaged his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

(AFP)