There’s still hope for Julian Assange in his battle to avoid US trial – The Canary

Support us and go ad-free

Home secretary Priti Patel will decide before the end of May whether to recommendJulian Assanges extradition to the US. The WikiLeaks founder is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

Patels recommendation will have implications for journalists everywhere, not just in the UK or US. But her recommendation is not necessarily the end of the matter. Because Assanges lawyers can still apply to appeal earlier court rulings.

On 14 March, defence lawyers released a statement following a Supreme Court decision. The statement explained that they have an opportunity to put arguments against extradition to Patel.

Crucially, it added:

No appeal to the High Court has yet been filed by him [Assange] in respect of the other important issues he raised previously in Westminster Magistrates Court. That separate process of appeal has, of course, yet to be initiated.

Former UK ambassador Craig Murray argued such appeals would likely consider:

The Canary has already published several legal arguments as to why the prosecutions case against Assange is flawed. Some of them are as follows:

Read on...

The Canary has also reported on how a star prosecution witness a convicted felon and paedophile fabricated evidence in exchange for a deal with the FBI. Under English law, where a law enforcement agency is shown to have directly fabricated or colluded in the falsification of evidence, this provides grounds for dismissal of a prosecution case or of convictions. A famous example of this was the Guildford Four case.

And then there are the revelations that the CIA plotted the potential kidnap, rendition, and murder of Assange.

The Assange case should also be seen in the context of other cases that are of legal relevance.

Katharine Gun worked as a translator for GCHQ. In 2003, she leaked a copy of a classified memo from the NSA. The memo requested that GCHQ monitor the communications of certain UN delegates. This was to pressurise them to support the US and UK in their intended invasion of Iraq. Gun later argued that the US and UK were attempting to either blackmail, bribe or threaten those delegates and their countries.

The leaked memo ended up with the Observer, which ran a front page story on it. Subsequently, Gun owned up to the leak and some months later was charged under the Official Secrets Act.

When Special Branch asked Gun why she leaked the memo, given that she worked for the British government, she poignantly replied:

No, I work for the British people. I do not gather intelligence so the government can lie to the British people.

In court, Guns lawyer threatened to disclose material that could question the legal basis of the war. At that point, UK authorities announced that they wont proceed with the prosecution. Labour cabinet minister Clare Short suspected the prosecution was dropped because they do not want the light shone on the attorney generals advice [that the war was legal].

As with Gun, the Assange case boils down to the question of whose interests a journalist should serve that of the state or of the public? Assanges lawyers compared him to Gun during the extradition hearings.

(Official Secrets, starring Keira Knightly, is a film version of what happened to Gun.)

Renowned whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg profoundly admired what Gun did. As reported in The Canary, Ellsberg also offered his unequivocal support to Assange.

In 1971, Ellsberg was responsible for leaking the History of US Decision-making in Vietnam 1945-68to the New York Times and Washington Post. The 7,000-page document became known as the Pentagon Papers. And it provided an insight into top-secret US decision-making during the Vietnam War.

As with Assange, Ellsberg was charged with violations under the Espionage Act. Crucially, however, the whistleblowers prosecution was dropped. This was after it became known that president Richard Nixon had organised a break-in of Ellsbergs psychiatrists office and the FBI had organised wiretapping.

In Assanges case, there was also a breach of confidentiality. Surveillance company UC Global secretly filmed Assange with his lawyers inside the Ecuadorian embassy. The company then allegedly passed the footage on to contacts with links to US intelligence.

In March, a UK court ruled that investigative journalist and former Labour MP Chris Mullin was right in refusing to disclose names of those who cooperated in his investigation into the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. Back in 2019, The Canary had reported that Special Branch knew the real bombers identities as far back as 1975.

In Assanges case, the prosecution argued that his attempt to protect a source Chelsea Manning equated to collusion. In contrast, the UK courts ruled that Mullin had every right to protect his sources. Moreover, Mullin emphasised that this forms the basis of a free press.

A number of articles have also exposed a potential conflict of interest by Emma Arbuthnot, who presided as judge in the earlier stages of the extradition hearings:

All these revelations suggest that what weve been witnessing from the very beginning is little more than a show trial.

Any one of the above concerns raised should, in theory, be enough to have the US extradition request dismissed. But first, any appeal requires High Court approval. And if that approval is given, there will be a glimmer of hope for Assange.

Ultimately, the core defence for Assange can boil down to two fundamental arguments. These are: freedom of speech, and the right to publish information of wrong-doings in the public interest.

Featured image via Wikimedia / Cancillera del Ecuador cropped 770403 pixels

Read the original here:
There's still hope for Julian Assange in his battle to avoid US trial - The Canary