February 19, 2024
On February 20 and 21, the High
Court of Justice in London will conduct a hearing to decide whether WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange can appeal the court’s earlier decision to extradite him
to the U.S. to face 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one for computer
crime, with a Methuselan prison sentence of 175 years. This, even though Julian
is not an American citizen (he’s Australian), and he was not under U.S.
jurisdiction when the “crimes” were allegedly committed.
At the end of the two-day hearing
the court could grant Julian permission to appeal, it could deny it, or it
could postpone its decision to a later date. Or the two judges might have some
other ruling up their puffy sleeves.
In the first instance, if permission
to appeal is granted, whilst awaiting another hearing, Julian would most likely
be returned to high-security Belmarsh Prison where he has been held for nearly
five years under arbitrary detention in near-total solitary confinement, though
he has been convicted of no crime. Belmarsh is known as Britain’s Guantanamo
because of its torturous conditions as well as for its population of mostly
alleged murderers and terrorists.
Julian, an award-winning journalist
and publisher, a life-long promoter of peace, a nine-time nominee for the Nobel
Peace Prize, is quite obviously not in that category, though there are those
who think he is. Most notable among these is former CIA Director Mike Pompeo,
who pronounced Julian “a darling of terrorist groups”, and defined WikiLeaks as
a “nonstate, hostile intelligence service”.
The crime that Julian is essentially
“guilty” of is revealing truths most uncomfortable to the ruling
powers—practicing journalism as it should be practiced.
The second possible outcome of the
upcoming hearing, denial of permission to appeal, could mean that within hours
Julian would be shackled and placed on a U.S. military jet headed for
Alexandria, Virginia. There his case will be heard by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, where many residents work in national
security (CIA, FBI, Department of Defense) or have a family member who does.
The jury pool comes from this group and, not surprisingly, no one brought
before this court under the Espionage Act has ever been exonerated.
Not only would Julian be denied a
fair trial there, according to experts such as Nils Melzer, former U.N.
rapporteur on torture, but he would not be able to use the defense that what he
did was in the public interest, though clearly it was. The outcome there for
Julian has virtually been decided even though his final appeal in Britain has
not yet been heard.
What happens to Julian after a
near-certain conviction by the federal court is that he will forthwith be sent
to Supermax ADX Florence Colorado—or a comparable hell hole—which was described
by a former supervisor there as being worse than death.
Possible stay of the extradition
There is one intervention that could
at the very least delay Julian’s rendition to the U.S. if his appeal is denied:
Julian’s lawyers will petition the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to
become involved as a last resort. Julian’s case certainly falls within the
scope of Rule 39, under which the court takes on a case if “the applicant would
otherwise face an imminent risk of irreparable damage”. This would be Julian’s
case in the U.S. where he would be subject to inhuman and degrading
treatment—torture.
But there are also a few
complications: it is not certain that Britain would respect the court’s
decision, and if extradition has already taken place, the U.S. may very well
not honor a decision made by a European court.
If (the big if) the plane bearing
Julian has not yet left the tarmac in Britain, and the ECtHR has taken on the
case in time, it’s probable Julian would be returned to Belmarsh to await the
subsequent ruling. Bail has previously been denied, even for health concerns,
because Julian is considered a high flight risk, and it’s doubtful bail would
be granted at this point.
It’s possible that the judges will
not hand down a decision on February 21, but postpone it. A delay would avoid a
messy outcry from the increasing numbers of fervent supporters of Julian during
an important election year for both the U.S. and Britain, when a virtual death
sentence of a publisher would not look good for an incumbent or any candidate
who condones the extradition yet touts “a democratic society”.
In any case, barring instant
extradition, nothing short of a deus ex machina could prevent Julian from being
returned to Belmarsh to await his appeal, intervention by the ECtHR, or a
delayed decision on the right to appeal from the High Court.
Deus ex machina?
As improbable as it might seem, the
suggestion of a deus ex machina did recently come onto the scene in the guise
of former president Donald Trump. Donald Trump, Jr., one of his father’s chief
advisors, recently said that based on what he knows now, he would be in favor
of dropping the charges against Julian Assange.
Vivek Ramaswamy, former candidate in
the Republican party primary, now a Trump supporter who throughout his campaign
said he would pardon Julian on day 1, stated that in a recent meeting with
Trump, when they discussed various issues, Trump said he would be amenable to
pardoning Julian. Three other presidential candidates also want to see Julian
freed: Jill Stein, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Marianne Williamson.
For a Trump pardon of Julian to
happen, many factors would have to come into play here. Trump has previously
flipflopped with regard to Julian, and may well do so again. “I love
WikiLeaks!” he declared with great fervor in 2016, lauding WikiLeaks for having
published internal emails of the Democratic National Committee showing it
undermined Bernie Sanders’ chances of becoming the Democratic presidential
nominee and instead installed Hillary Clinton.
But then Trump indicted Julian under
the spurious 107-year-old Espionage Act and declined to pardon him during his
last days in office. And, under Trump’s presidency, the CIA plotted to kill
Julian. Perhaps now Trump wants to be seen as doing the right thing for
Julian—or just gain the hundreds of thousands of votes of those who want to see
that happen.
The possibility of Trump being
elected and then pardoning Julian is of course very far from certain. If indeed
it did happen, it couldn’t be before January 2025. By that time, unless
extradited, Julian will have suffered yet another year in Belmarsh prison,
where he has been held since April 11, 2019, on remand, at the bidding of the
U.S.
Increasing demands for Julian to be
freed
As Julian’s dire situation gathers
more attention, voices from all around the world have risen up calling for his
liberation. In a groundbreaking cross-party show of unity, members of
Australia’s House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly (86 to 42) on
February 14 for Julian not to be extradited but to be brought home. What was
particularly significant here and welcomed by Julian’s supporters well beyond
Australia is that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also voted in favor, after
months of waffling.
“Enough is enough”, he kept saying,
yet not insisting that the U.S. pardon and release his country’s most famous
citizen. This despite the fact that Julian’s return is what nearly 80 percent
of Australians want. Perhaps Albanese’s previous inaction was motivated by a
recently signed juicy agreement with the U.S. to buy nuclear submarines,
bringing the country yet more into the orbit of the U.S. as a strategic
satellite in a geopolitically important part of the world.
In view of Albanese’s reticence, a
multi-partisan group of Australian parliamentarians has been consistently
acting on behalf of those constituents who want Julian freed. Recently they
uncovered a ruling by the U.K. Supreme Court that could be the cog in the drive
to send Julian to the U.S. According to the law, if a government stipulates
that a country to which a person is to be extradited from Britain has given
assurances that that person’s health or life won’t be threatened in the
receiving country, then those “assurances” must be thoroughly investigated by a
third party before extradition can take place.
And so the parliamentarians have
written to British Home Secretary James Cleverly calling for a probe into the
risks to Julian’s health should he be extradited to the U.S.
In the U.S., House Resolution 934,
introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican from Arizona, calls for the U.S. to
drop the charges against Julian Assange, stating that “regular journalistic
activities, including the obtainment and publication of information, are
protected under the First Amendment”. The Resolution has eight other
co-sponsors from both parties and is currently before the House Judiciary
Committee. While its passage there, then onto the floor of the Congress, then
over to the Senate could be a lengthy route, its supporters hope that thousands
of people will write to their representatives urging their support for this
resolution, thereby bringing massive attention to Julian’s case and what it
means.
Parliamentarians in France, where
Julian also has a family, have called for Julian to be granted political
asylum, though it’s questionable if this could be allowed if a demand for
asylum has not been requested while the person is actually on French soil.
Mexico and Bolivia have offered Julian asylum. Cities in dozens of countries
have named Julian an Honorary Citizen.
The five major publications, The New
York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and Der Spiegel, which had
“partnered” with WikiLeaks in publishing thousands of files, signed an open
letter on November 22 of last year calling for an end to the prosecution of
Julian Assange They’re rather late to the game, even with that wishy-washy
letter, having profited from enormous sales when the WikiLeaks files were
released, then not only ignoring Julian, but criticizing him, often using lies
and slander.
Julian’s importance has been
acknowledged by hundreds of thousands of parliamentarians, human rights
authorities, medical doctors, religious leaders (including the Pope), artists,
teachers, trade unionists, legal professionals, journalists, students, writers
all over the world who publicly demand his immediate release.
Nevertheless, the Americans and
Brits may very well prevail, keeping Julian locked up for more years as he
wastes away under the grueling prison conditions awaiting a final decision. Or
they could prevail in having Julian sent to a supermax prison via the U.S.
district court.
2 by 3 meters in Belmarsh
During the nearly five years Julian
has been incarcerated in Belmarsh, he has been kept mostly in solitary
confinement in a cell measuring 2 meters by 3 meters, for 23 hours a day,
allowed to stretch his long legs in an enclosed concrete area for an hour. Food
is budgeted at 2 British pounds ($2.50) a day per prisoner, with meals
consisting of gruel, thin soup, and little else.
Julian has not seen sunlight since
he entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 seeking asylum there, apart
from the day he was dragged from the embassy, or the days he was driven in a
van from Belmarsh to those court hearings he was actually allowed to attend in
person—albeit enclosed in a glass box (as is often the case in British
courtrooms).
Not surprisingly his health has been
consistently declining. Julian has lost a lot of weight and is paler than any
human should be. In 2021, during or before a court hearing, (it’s unclear) he
suffered a mini stroke at the age of just 49. He has subsequently been
diagnosed with nerve damage and memory problems, and may very well suffer a
much more serious stroke.
Death is never far away in
Belmarsh—when Julian’s father John Shipton visited his son there, he reported
that three suicides and one murder had occurred in the prison just during the
past month alone. Nor was death far away in the embassy, where plain-clothes
and uniformed officers menacingly patrolled and surveilled the embassy 24/7.
While Julian was considered paranoid
for believing the U.S. wanted to kill him, an exhaustive investigation by Yahoo
News in September of 2019 revealed that the U.S. and British intelligence
services conspired to assassinate Julian by poisoning him while he was in the
embassy or shooting him on the street or else kidnapping him from there.
Psychological torture
Julian’s mental health has also
suffered severely, as would be the case for anyone incarcerated for so long in
such horrifying conditions, undergoing repeated legal proceedings to determine
whether the equivalent of a death sentence—lifelong internment in a U.S.
supermax prison— will be imposed.
In a supermax prison, and especially
under “special administrative measures” that would most likely be applied to
Julian, he would be completely isolated. At least in Belmarsh he can now have
some visitors, though restricted, and, finally, some books and writing paper.
In the U.S. prison he would be in a virtually empty cell, forbidden any contact
with the outside world, or even fellow prisoners, and thus denied any support
or motivation to keep on living.
The toll on Julian’s mental health
has been so significant that when Nils Melzer visited Julian in Belmarsh in May
of 2019 with two medical experts, he stated unequivocally that Julian showed
all the signs of psychological torture. His excellent book, The Trial of Julian
Assange, lays out the case in great detail.
Judge Vanessa Baraitser, the
magistrate who officiated during Julian’s first hearing, recognized Julian’s
psychological fragility, as described in evidence presented to the court.
Although she ruled in favor of extradition based on the 18 points presented by
the American lawyers (obtaining, receiving, and disclosing classified
information), she ruled against extradition on the grounds that she was certain
Julian would commit suicide if placed in a supermax prison.
It’s unlikely Baraitser was
motivated by the milk of human kindness, as she refused bail, saying Julian
would “abscond”, and, ironically, had him sent back to the same place where,
testimony showed, he had seriously contemplated and possibly even attempted
suicide. Moreover, subsequent hearings and a final ruling on the 18 points for
which she supported extradition would mean Julian would never be released from
any prison.
It is clear to many that the
process—the relentless persecution and prosecution of Julian—is the punishment.
Keeping him silenced, in a deathly dungeon, unable to do what has always been
his passion—revealing truths so that we may all act upon them to make the world
a better place—is clearly an eroding and fatal punishment.
A threat to the real criminals
Why this ongoing punishment has been
inflicted on Julian is to completely break him down, physically and
psychologically, without even having to impose the very questionable ultimate
blow of locking him up in a supermax prison for 175 years. The 10 million
documents Julian published on WikiLeaks earned the wrath of those politicians,
officials, plutocrats, dictators, rulers, generals, corporate executives whose
murderous, illegal deeds he revealed, whether war crimes, crimes against
humanity, corruption, mass surveillance. Ironically none of the perpetrators of
those crimes has ever been convicted, while the publisher who revealed them
remains in prison.
Revelations have helped end torture
in Guantanamo, for example, overturn corrupt governments as in Egypt, end wars,
for example in Iraq, aided by the very disturbing Collateral Murder video
showing U.S. soldiers in Baghdad joyfully shooting down civilians from an
Apache helicopter. Julian has done more than anyone to uncover how governments,
politicians, corporations, the military, and the press truly operate. It’s not
surprising they want him silenced forever.
The possibility of Julian’s cranking
up WikiLeaks to once again be the propaganda and lies-shattering, truth-telling
online publication that it was makes him a huge threat to all those all around
the world who are committing unseen—or even seen—and with impunity the same and
even more nefarious crimes Julian earlier revealed.
During Julian’s incarceration and
WikiLeaks slowdown, alternative journalists and bloggers have done heroic jobs
of reporting what must be brought to light—in Gaza, Ukraine, Yemen, Syria,
Iraq, for example. But few, if any, has the capability to receive securely and
completely anonymously major revelations from whistleblowers and then publish
them for free for anyone anywhere in the world, as WikiLeaks did so
successfully using a revolutionary method Julian invented and pioneered.
The two-day hearing beginning on
February 20 will be the fourth time Julian’s case has been in court. The first
time, under Judge Baraitser in the Magistrate’s court that denied extradition
but upheld the Americans’ 18 points, was followed by a hearing before two
judges of the High Court, ruling on the U.S. demand to appeal the extradition
decision based on additional assurances. While highly unusual, if not illegal,
to present new assurances at that point, the High Court nevertheless agreed to
hear the appeal.
In December 2021 it overturned the
denial of extradition, accepting the specious assurance by the U.S. that Julian
would be treated well in a U.S. prison, unless, their worthless caveat stated,
he did something to warrant changing that. Not only could such “assurances” be
revoked, but they are unenforceable.
Assange’s lawyers then filed an
application for a cross appeal to the High Court of the first court’s judgement
as well as the Home Secretary’s decision to extradite. That application was
denied by a single High Court judge.
Craig Murray (craigmurray.org),
Kevin Gosztola (Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case against Julian
Assange), and the excellent Consortium News have done thorough reporting on all
these hearings, while the brilliant investigative reporter Stefania Maurizi has
followed Julian and WikiLeaks from the beginning, uncovering, as in a detective
novel, the government forces arrayed against Julian and their treacherous
tactics (Secret Power: WikiLeaks and Its Enemies).
The right to an appeal will now be
heard this February 20 and 21 by two High Court judges, Mr. Justice Johnson and
Dame Victoria Sharp, who were recently announced. Sharp and her family have
long and strong connections to Conservative party leaders, and Sharp’s recent
ruling against a journalist, Carole Cadwalladr, in a libel case, was denounced
by press freedom advocates for supporting the repression of public interest
journalism. Previous judges ruling on Julian’s case have had equally
questionable connections.
A case rife with illegalities
The illegalities in this case are
numerous, as the bona fides of some of the judges suggest, and further
underscore the fact that all along this case has not been about justice but
politics. Among the many transgressions of justice and the rule of law figure
initially the conditions under which Julian was kept in the Ecuadorian embassy,
from which he could never step outside, even for a moment, even for urgent
medical care, without risk of being whisked away and imprisoned.
He and his visitors, including his
doctors and lawyers, had all their interactions with him filmed and ultimately
sent to the CIA. Their electronic devices were confiscated during their visits,
photographed, and that information was also sent to the CIA, thereby violating
the rights of legal and medical confidentiality—to say nothing of the Fourth
Amendment right to privacy—and potentially severely compromising Julian’s legal
case.
Two lawyers and two journalists have
filed a lawsuit against the CIA and Mike Pompeo plus UC Global, a Spanish
security company that carried out the spying in the embassy, for these
violations, and a federal judge in New York has agreed to let the suit go
through, though any final decision will not be immediate.
An embassy’s premises are meant to
be inviolable safe places for those seeking asylum there, yet British police,
with the agreement of the Ecuadorian embassy under its newly elected
government, dragged Julian—who is also an Ecuadorian citizen—from the embassy
and locked him away in Belmarsh. They kept all his belongings, including his
computers and legal notes. In Belmarsh he has been kept under conditions that
violate any sense of human rights.
The original “crime” for which
Julian was brought to prison was breaching bail when he went to the Ecuadorian
embassy, rightfully fearing extradition from Sweden to the U.S. following
subsequently dismissed—and fabricated—allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.
Breach of bail in Britain carries a maximum penalty of a year’s incarceration,
though in most cases it results in a fine or dismissal.
Yet Julian has been kept in Belmarsh
well beyond that limit, never convicted of any crime, in clear violation of
habeas corpus. Much of the irrefutable evidence presented by Julian’s
lawyers—he did heavily redact documents before releasing them on WikiLeaks, not
a single person was harmed because of the releases, Julian did not help Chelsea
Manning leak classified documents—was indeed fallaciously refuted by the
judges.
The Espionage Act, under which a
journalist or publisher has heretofore never been prosecuted, was designed, as
its name suggests, to prosecute those Americans working to undermine the U.S.
war efforts by delivering national defense information to the enemy—espionage
coming from espion, or spy, in French. Not only is Julian not an American
citizen, and he was in Europe when he was publishing WikiLeaks, but the “enemy”
to whom he was meant to have supplied classified information—information in the
public interest—must ipso facto be any member of the general public anywhere in
the world!
The U.S. First Amendment protects
the publication of documents, even those that are classified. Moreover per
extradition agreements between Britain and the U.S., a person convicted for
political reasons—and the case against Julian is purely political—or who could
face a death penalty in the receiving country, may not be extradited from
Britain.
One of the most egregious
transgressions of justice during Julian’s first hearing was the fact that the
principal evidence against him was supplied by a diagnosed sociopath, Sigurdur
Thordarson, who had been convicted of fraud, embezzlement, and crimes against
minors, and who later recanted his testimony, saying he had been bribed by the
U.S. to say what he did.
Though Julian’s defense in any
impartial courtroom based on the rule of law would undeniably be upheld, he
remains condemned, locked up, perhaps forever, with the uncertainty of his
future a gnawing torture.
Groundswell of support
Thousands of people from all over
the world plan to gather outside the Royal Courts of Justice where the hearing
will be held on February 20 and 21 to support Julian, to demand that justice be
done. As this is not a trial but a hearing to determine if an appeal against
extradition can take place, it is unclear whether Julian will be present,
though he has requested that he be allowed to be in court so he can confer with
his lawyers. Though for most of his time in Belmarsh Julian was deprived of a
computer—although he was once allowed one that had the keys glued—he has
nevertheless played a major role in helping his lawyers prepare his legal case.
Stella Assange, Julian’s wife,
mother of their two children, and one of his lawyers, has been travelling all
over the world trying to convince world leaders, journalists, individuals why
it’s in all of our interests that Julian be freed, that justice be upheld, that
freedom of expression is sacrosanct, as is our right to know, and that
governments must be held accountable.
There has been a groundswell of
support for Julian as the court date approaches. Day X, as this date has been
referred to in calls to action, has rallied even those who haven’t been active
in Julian’s defense to protest in support of what may be Julian’s last attempt
to be freed. From Boston to Buenos Aires, Sydney to Naples, Mexico to Hamburg,
San Francisco to Montevideo, Denver to Paris, and well beyond, major
demonstrations have been planned all across the world on February 20 and 21.
What’s at stake
What’s at stake for Julian is
horrendous. What’s at stake for the rest of us is terrifying. If Julian is
extradited and convicted under the draconian Espionage Act, the message will be
that anyone anywhere in the world who says or writes anything that the U.S.
considers against their interests can also be locked away forever.
While the U.S. seems to feel that
extraterritorial jurisdiction is its right alone, other countries may decide to
follow suit, picking off journalists or activists who don’t toe the government
line. If a journalist and publisher is locked away forever for revealing
truths, a clear message is broadcast, and even more journalists and publishers
will self-censor, so the same fate isn’t rained down on them. And that ends a
free and open press, that kills our right to know.
Today it is open season on
journalists in many parts of the world, most egregiously in Palestine where
some 120 journalists—and often their families as well—have been targeted and
assassinated by the IDF of Israel. Increasing numbers of so-called news organizations
unquestioningly publish government press releases essentially as news reports,
to maintain access to those governments. Bloggers who write on Twitter or
Facebook or other social media sites are frequently censored.
To understand what’s going on in the
very complex world of today, we desperately need Julian Assange, with his
analytical, erudite, prophetic mind, to reveal, assimilate, and interpret this
precarious world so we might understand and act.
Some good news
The good news is that Julian has
behind him his devoted family, travelling the world, speaking out for him. The
excellent film “Ithaka” shows this in detail and very movingly. Julian also has
behind him a dogged legal team of hundreds of lawyers and researchers looking
for every possible way to secure his freedom.
And he has behind him the hundreds
of dedicated supporters who hold weekly vigils whether in Piccadilly Circus or
outside Belmarsh prison or in a square in Brussels or Berlin, or who join
marches and rallies all over the world.
The other good news is that Julian
is indefatigable. While incarcerated in the Ecuadorian embassy, under very
difficult circumstances, during the last year often without Internet or
telephone connections, Julian helped to publish 5 million documents, produced 3
books, launched more than 30 publications, and gave 100 talks. And he is
extraordinarily resilient—few, if any of us, would be able to go through what
Julian has, and to keep on going.
John Pilger, the brilliant
journalist and filmmaker who recently passed away, said of his dear friend,
whom he visited on several occasions in Belmarsh, “Julian is the embodiment of
courage.” As Pilger was leaving the prison visitors room, he looked back at
Julian. “He held his fist high and clenched, as he always does.”
Julian Assange’s Final
Appeal
If Julian Assange is denied
permission to appeal his extradition to the United States before a panel of two
judges at the High Court in London this week, he will have no recourse left
within the British legal system.
His lawyers can ask the European
Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for a stay of execution under Rule 39, which is
given in “exceptional circumstances” and “only where there is an imminent risk
of irreparable harm.” But it is far from certain that the British court will
agree.
It may order Julian’s immediate
extradition prior to a Rule 39 instruction or may decide to ignore a request
from the ECtHR to allow Julian to have his case heard by the court.
The nearly 15-year-long persecution
of Julian, which has taken a heavy toll on his physical and psychological
health, is done in the name of extradition to the U.S. where he would stand
trial for allegedly violating 17 counts of the 1917 Espionage Act, with a
potential sentence of 170 years.
Julian’s “crime” is that he
published classified documents, internal messages, reports and videos from the
U.S. government and U.S. military in 2010, which were provided by U.S. army
whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
This vast trove of material revealed
massacres of civilians, torture, assassinations, the list of detainees held at
Guantanamo Bay and the conditions they were subjected to, as well as the Rules
of Engagement in Iraq.
Those who perpetrated these crimes —
including the U.S. helicopter pilots who gunned down two Reuters journalists
and 10 other civilians and severely injured two children, all captured in the
Collateral Murder video — have never been prosecuted.
Julian exposed what the U.S. empire
seeks to airbrush out of history.
Julian’s persecution is an ominous
message to the rest of us. Defy the U.S. imperium, expose its crimes, and no
matter who you are, no matter what country you come from, no matter where you
live, you will be hunted down and brought to the U.S. to spend the rest of your
life in one of the harshest prison systems on earth.
If Julian is found guilty it will
mean the death of investigative journalism into the inner workings of state
power.
To possess, much less publish,
classified material — as I did when I was a reporter for The New York Times —
will be criminalized. And that is the point, one understood by The New York
Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El País and The Guardian, who issued a joint
letter calling on the U.S. to drop the charges against him.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony
Albanese and other federal lawmakers voted on Thursday for the United States
and Britain to end Julian’s incarceration, noting that it stemmed from him
“doing his job as a journalist” to reveal “evidence of misconduct by the U.S.”
The legal case against Julian, which
I have covered from the beginning and will cover again in London this week, has
a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland quality, where judges and lawyers speak in solemn
tones about law and justice while making a mockery of the most basic tenets of
civil liberties and jurisprudence.
How can hearings go forward when the
Spanish security firm at the Ecuadorian Embassy, UC Global, where Julian sought
refuge for seven years, provided videotaped surveillance of meetings between
Julian and his lawyers to the C.I.A., eviscerating attorney-client privilege?
This alone should have seen the case thrown out of court.
How can the Ecuadorian government
led by Lenin Moreno violate international law by rescinding Julian’s asylum
status and permit London Metropolitan Police into the Ecuadorian Embassy —
sovereign territory of Ecuador — to carry Julian to a waiting police van?
Why did the courts accept the
prosecution’s charge that Julian is not a legitimate journalist?
Why did the United States and
Britain ignore Article 4 of their Extradition Treaty that prohibits extradition
for political offenses?
How is the case against Julian
allowed to go ahead after the key witness for the United States, Sigurdur
Thordarson — a convicted fraudster and pedophile — admitted to fabricating the
accusations he made against Julian?
How can Julian, an Australian
citizen, be charged under the U.S. Espionage Act when he did not engage in
espionage and wasn’t based in the U.S when he received the leaked documents?
Why are the British courts
permitting Julian to be extradited to the U.S. when the C.I.A. — in addition to
putting him under 24-hour video and digital surveillance while in the
Ecuadorian Embassy — considered kidnapping and assassinating him, plans that included
a potential shoot-out on the streets of London with involvement by the
Metropolitan Police?
How can Julian be condemned as a
publisher when he did not, as Daniel Ellsberg did, obtain and leak the
classified documents he published?
Why is the U.S. government not
charging the publisher of The New York Times or The Guardian with espionage for
publishing the same leaked material in partnership with WikiLeaks?
Why is Julian being held in
isolation in a high-security prison without trial for nearly five years when
his only technical violation of the law is breaching bail conditions when he
sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy? Normally this would entail a fine.
Why was he denied bail after he was
sent to HM Prison Belmarsh?
If Julian is extradited, his
judicial lynching will get worse.
His defense will be stymied by U.S.
anti-terrorism laws, including the Espionage Act and Special Administrative
Measures (SAMs). He will continue being blocked from speaking to the public —
except on a rare occasion — and being released on bail.
He will be tried in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia where most espionage cases
have been won by the U.S. government. That the jury pool is largely drawn from
those who work for or have friends and relatives who work for the C.I.A., and
other national security agencies that are headquartered not far from the court,
no doubt contributes to this string of court decisions.
The British courts, from the
inception, have made the case notoriously difficult to cover, severely limiting
seats in the courtroom, providing video links that have been faulty, and in the
case of the hearing this week, prohibiting anyone outside of England and Wales,
including journalists who had previously covered the hearings, from accessing a
link to what are supposed to be public proceedings.
As usual, we are not informed about
schedules or timetables. Will the court render a decision at the end of the
two-day hearing on Feb. 20 and Feb. 21? Or will it wait weeks, even months, to
render a ruling as it has previously? Will it permit the ECtHR to hear the case
or immediately railroad Julian to the U.S.?
I have my doubts about the High
Court passing the case to the ECtHR, given that the parliamentary arm of the
Council of Europe, which created the ECtHR, along with their Commissioner for
Human Rights, oppose Julian’s “detention, extradition and prosecution” because
it represents “a dangerous precedent for journalists.”
Will the court honor Julian’s
request to be present in the hearing, or will he be forced to remain in the
high-security HM Prison Belmarsh in Thamesmead, south east London, as has also
happened before? No one is able to tell us.
Julian was saved from extradition in
January 2021 when District Judge Vanessa Baraitser at Westminster Magistrates’
Court refused to authorize the extradition request.
In her 132-page ruling, she found
that there was a “substantial risk” Julian would commit suicide due to the
severity of the conditions he would endure in the U.S. prison system. But this
was a slim thread.
The judge accepted all the charges
leveled by the U.S. against Julian as being filed in good faith. She rejected
the arguments that his case was politically motivated, that he would not get a
fair trial in the U.S. and that his prosecution is an assault on the freedom of
the press.
Baraitser’s decision was overturned
after the U.S. government appealed to the High Court in London. Although the
High Court accepted Baraitser’s conclusions about Julian’s “substantial risk”
of suicide if he was subjected to certain conditions within a U.S. prison, it
also accepted four assurances in U.S. Diplomatic Note no. 74, given to the
court in February 2021, which promised Julian would be treated well.
The U.S. government claimed in the
diplomatic note that its assurances “entirely answer the concerns which caused
the judge [in the lower court] to discharge Mr. Assange.”
The “assurances” state that Julian
will not be subject to SAMs. They promise that Julian, an Australian citizen,
can serve his sentence in Australia if the Australian government requests his
extradition.
They promise he will receive
adequate clinical and psychological care. They promise that, pre-trial and
post-trial, Julian will not be held in the Administrative Maximum Facility
(ADX) in Florence, Colorado.
It sounds reassuring. But it is part
of the cynical judicial pantomime that characterizes Julian’s persecution.
No one is held pre-trial in ADX
Florence. ADX Florence is also not the only supermax prison in the U.S. where
Julian can be imprisoned.
He could be placed in one of our
other Guantanamo-like facilities in a Communications Management Unit (CMU).
CMUs are highly restrictive units that replicate the near total isolation
imposed by SAMs. The “assurances” are not legally binding. All come with escape
clauses.
Should Julian do “something
subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the
imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX” he will, the court conceded, be
subject to these harsher forms of control.
If Australia does not request a
transfer it “cannot be a cause for criticism of the USA, or a reason for
regarding the assurances as inadequate to meet the judge’s concerns,” the
ruling reads.
And even if that were not the case,
it would take Julian 10 to 15 years to appeal his sentence up to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which would be more than enough time to destroy him
psychologically and physically. Amnesty International said the “assurances are
not worth the paper they are written on.”
Julian’s lawyers will attempt to
convince two High Court judges to grant him permission to appeal a number of
the arguments against extradition which Judge Baraitser dismissed in January
2021.
His lawyers, if the appeal is
granted, will argue that prosecuting Julian for his journalistic activity
represents a “grave violation” of his right to free speech;
- that Julian is being prosecuted for his political opinions, something which the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty does not allow;
- that Julian is charged with “pure political offenses” and the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty prohibits extradition under such circumstances;
- that Julian should not be extradited to face prosecution where the Espionage Act “is being extended in an unprecedented and unforeseeable way”;
- that the charges could be amended resulting in Julian facing the death penalty;
- and that Julian will not receive a fair trial in the U.S. They are also asking for the right to introduce new evidence about C.I.A. plans to kidnap and assassinate Julian.
If the High Court grants Julian
permission to appeal, a further hearing will be scheduled during which time he
will argue his appeal grounds. If the High Court refuses to grant Julian
permission to appeal, the only option left is to appeal to the ECtHR. If he is
unable to take his case to the ECtHR he will be extradited to the U.S.
The decision to seek Julian’s
extradition, contemplated by Barack Obama’s administration, was pursued by
Donald Trump’s administration following WikiLeaks’ publication of the documents
known as Vault 7, which exposed the C.I.A.’s cyberwarfare programs, including
those designed to monitor and take control of cars, smart TVs, web browsers and
the operating systems of most smart phones.
The Democratic Party leadership
became as bloodthirsty as the Republicans following WikiLeaks’ publishing of
tens of thousands of emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and senior Democratic officials, including those of John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton’s campaign chairman during the 2016 presidential election.
The Podesta emails exposed that
Clinton and other members of Obama’s administration knew that Saudi Arabia and
Qatar — which had both donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation —
were major funders of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
They revealed transcripts of three
private talks Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs — for which she was paid $675,000 —
a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe.
Clinton was seen in the emails
telling the financial elites that she wanted “open trade and open borders” and
believed Wall Street executives were best positioned to manage the economy, a
statement that contradicted her campaign promises of financial reform.
They exposed the Clinton campaign’s
self-described “Pied Piper” strategy which used their press contacts to
influence Republican primaries by “elevating” what they called “more extreme
candidates,” to ensure Trump or Ted Cruz won their party’s nomination.
They exposed Clinton’s advance
knowledge of questions in a primary debate. The emails also exposed Clinton as
one of the architects of the war and destruction of Libya, a war she believed
would burnish her credentials as a presidential candidate.
Journalists can argue that this
information, like the war logs, should have remained secret. But if they do,
they can’t call themselves journalists.
The Democratic leadership, which
attempted to blame Russia for its election loss to Trump — in what became known
as Russiagate — charged that the Podesta emails and the DNC leaks were obtained
by Russian government hackers, although an investigation headed by Robert
Mueller, the former F.B.I. director, “did not develop sufficient admissible
evidence that WikiLeaks knew of — or even was willfully blind to” any alleged
hacking by the Russian state.
Julian is persecuted because he
provided the public with the most important information about U.S. government
crimes and mendacity since the release of the Pentagon Papers. Like all great
journalists, he was nonpartisan. His target was power.
He made public the killing of nearly
700 civilians who had approached too closely to U.S. convoys and checkpoints,
including pregnant women, the blind and deaf, and at least 30 children.
He made public the more than 15,000
unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians and the torture and abuse of some 800 men
and boys, aged between 14 to 89, at Guantánamo Bay detention camp.
He showed us that Hillary Clinton in
2009 ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and
other U.N. representatives from China, France, Russia, and the U.K., spying
that included obtaining DNA, iris scans, fingerprints, and personal passwords.
He exposed that Obama, Hillary
Clinton and the C.I.A. backed the June 2009 military coup in Honduras that
overthrew the democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya, replacing him
with a murderous and corrupt military regime.
He revealed that the United States
secretly launched missile, bomb and drone attacks on Yemen, killing scores of
civilians.
No other contemporary journalist has
come close to matching his revelations.
Julian is the first. We are next.
No comments:
Post a Comment