{"id":258138,"date":"2024-04-01T12:00:35","date_gmt":"2024-04-01T11:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=258138"},"modified":"2024-03-27T04:50:11","modified_gmt":"2024-03-27T04:50:11","slug":"assange-extradition-delayed-uk-high-court-asks-us-to-offer-assurances-or-face-limited-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2024\/04\/assange-extradition-delayed-uk-high-court-asks-us-to-offer-assurances-or-face-limited-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"Assange Extradition Delayed: UK High Court Asks US to Offer ‘Assurances’ or Face Limited Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Royal Courts of Justice in London, which houses the High Court of Justice (Photo: Joe Passe)<\/p><\/div>\n

While granting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a limited appeal against extradition, the US government was encouraged by the UK High Court to submit “assurances” that could prevent further proceedings. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

26 Mar 2024<\/em> – The British High Court of Justice partially granted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange\u2019s request to appeal and delayed his extradition to the United States. However, the U.S. government was given an opportunity to provide \u201cassurances\u201d that may result in his extradition in the next months.<\/p>\n

Assange was granted permission to appeal [PDF<\/a>] on the grounds that extradition may violate his right to freedom of expression. The court accepted that he may face prejudice due to the fact that he is a non-U.S. citizen, and that the prosecution may expose him to the death penalty, which is barred under extradition law.<\/p>\n

But the court refused to allow Assange to appeal on the grounds that the U.S. is prosecuting him for his \u201cpolitical opinions,\u201d that extradition would violate his right to a fair trial, and that extradition would violate his right to life or expose him to cruel and inhuman treatment.<\/p>\n

The court rejected Assange\u2019s request to include \u201cfresh evidence\u201d related to alleged evidence that CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other CIA officials sketched out plans<\/a> to kidnap or kill Assange while he was living under diplomatic asylum in Ecuador\u2019s London embassy.<\/p>\n

U.S. officials were encouraged by the court to offer \u201cassurances\u201d that Assange would be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that he would not be \u201cprejudiced at trial\u201d as a result of his nationality, and that the death penalty will not be imposed.<\/p>\n

Stella Assange condemned the High Court for inviting a \u201cpolitical intervention from the United States to send a letter saying it\u2019s all okay. I found this astounding.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought. Julian should never have been imprisoned for a single day,\u201d she further declared.<\/p>\n

If the U.S. government submits such assurances, which they are likely to do, prosecutors in the U.S. Justice Department may avert a limited appeal. They have until April 16 to offer assurances.<\/p>\n

A hearing will be held on May 20 if the U.S. government submits assurances to the court.<\/p>\n

Assange has been detained at His Majesty\u2019s Prison Belmarsh for nearly five years. Extradition was approved by the U.K. government in June 2022, and the WikiLeaks founder has pursued an appeal for more than a year and a half. In that time, his mental and physical health has greatly deteriorated.<\/p>\n

Despite global condemnation by civil liberties, human rights, journalist unions, press freedom organizations, and various political leaders, especially in Australia and Europe, U.S. prosecutors refuse to drop charges against Assange that were first pursued by officials in President Donald Trump\u2019s administration.<\/p>\n

Assange is charged with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion. The unprecedented charges stem from the fact that he engaged in journalism and published classified documents that were provided by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 and 2011.<\/p>\n

In 2021, the High Court\u00a0ruled<\/a>\u00a0in favor of the U.S. government after they appealed a district judge\u2019s decision that found extradition would be oppressive to Assange\u2019s mental health given the widespread inhuman treatment that has been documented in U.S. jails and prisons. (That ruling came on International Human Rights Day.)<\/p>\n

The U.S. State Department salvaged the extradition case by intervening. They offered “diplomatic assurances” on how Assange would be treated in U.S. custody and reminded the U.K. government that the U.S. and the U.K. have a \u201clong history of cooperation\u201d on \u201cextradition matters.\u201d That was enough to alleviate the High Court’s concerns, even though there were loopholes in their promises.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Risk of Death Penalty Given Calls from U.S. Politicians<\/h2>\n

Extradition from the U.K. is barred if there is a risk that the requested person will be sentenced to death.<\/p>\n

During court proceedings<\/a> on February 21, Ben Watson KC, who was instructed to represent the U.K. Home Secretary,\u00a0accepted that Assange could later be charged with \u201caiding or abetting treason\u201d or a more severe charge of \u201cespionage\u201d that could lead to the death penalty.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are no arrangements in place to prevent the imposition of the death penalty,\u201d Watson conceded.<\/p>\n

Watson\u2019s responses led the High Court\u00a0 to believe that capital charges, given calls by \u201cleading politicians and other public figures\u201d in the U.S., could result in a death sentence for Assange if he was convicted.<\/p>\n

Denying Assange First Amendment Rights: ‘A Real Prospect of Success’<\/h2>\n

Furthermore, the High Court accepted that Assange wished to argue at trial that if he was granted First Amendment rights, then the prosecution would be stopped.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defense to the extradition charge,\u201d the High Court added. \u201cFurther, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, a lead prosecutor on the case, who suggested the U.S. government might argue during trial that Assange was not protected<\/a> by the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

\u201c[Kromberg] made a formal sworn declaration on behalf of the respondent and in support of the extradition request,\u201d the High Court asserted. \u201cHe put himself forward as able to provide authoritative assistance as to the application of the First Amendment. It can fairly be assumed that he would not have said that the prosecution \u2018could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment\u2019 unless that was a tenable argument that the prosecution was entitled to deploy with a real prospect of success.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf such an argument were to succeed it would (at least arguably) cause the applicant prejudice on the grounds of his non-US citizenship (and hence, on the grounds of his nationality),\u201d the court added.<\/p>\n

Only narrowly did the High Court accept an appeal on the ground that his right to freedom of expression may be violated if he was not \u201cpermitted to rely on the First Amendment\u201d at trial.<\/p>\n

Not Being Prosecuted for Exposing U.S. Crimes<\/h2>\n

The court sided with Kromberg, who claimed the \u201cpublication charges\u201d against Assange are \u201cexplicitly limited to documents that contain the names of human intelligence sources.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIndeed, a deliberate decision was made not to charge the applicant in respect of the publication of any other material by him,\u201d the High Court stated. \u201cThe applicant\u2019s publication of material which he alleges exposed the respondent\u2019s involvement in serious criminality may well raise strong public interest factors justifying a high level of protection. But the respondent does not seek to prosecute the applicant in respect of those matters.\u201d<\/p>\n

Effectively, the High Court ignored the \u201cgeneral allegations\u201d in the indictment [PDF<\/a>] that do criminalize Assange for publishing all the material that he obtained. He is charged for \u201cencouraging sources\u201d to \u201ccircumvent legal safeguards on information,\u201d \u201cprovide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public dissemination,\u201d and \u201ccontinue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n

All of the charges stem from standard newsgathering activities that Assange engaged in as WikiLeaks editor-in-chief. Those activities were undertaken for the purpose of publishing documents on U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and diplomatic cables that exposed torture, human rights abuses, and various other examples of misconduct on the part of U.S. officials.<\/p>\n

The High Court’s decision made it clear that if the State Department offers another set of assurances then the U.S. government will likely be permitted to move forward with extraditing Assange. That would lead Assange’s legal team to file a petition in the European Court of Human Rights in a last-ditch effort to save him from being flown to a U.S. detention center for trial.<\/p>\n

Outside of the High Court, Stella Assange reminded the press and Assange supporters that her husband is a \u201cpolitical prisoner. He is a journalist, and he is being persecuted because he exposed the true cost of war in human lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis 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 they will try to kill you.”<\/p>\n

___________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Kevin Gosztola is <\/em>Editor for <\/em>The Wide Shot, Journalist, film\/video college graduate, and movie fan. Member of Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 thedissenter.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

26 Mar 2024 – While granting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a limited appeal against extradition, the US government was encouraged by the UK High Court to submit “assurances” that could prevent further proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":237070,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[229,918,2732,2709,910,2963,942,487,2964,378,651,234,911,454,572,639,292,70,126,921,113],"class_list":["post-258138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-europe","tag-activism","tag-assange","tag-belmarsh-prison","tag-belmarsh-tribunal","tag-big-brother","tag-cryptome","tag-ecuador","tag-human-rights","tag-john-young","tag-journalism","tag-justice","tag-media","tag-surveillance","tag-sweden","tag-torture","tag-uk","tag-un","tag-usa","tag-violence","tag-whistleblowing","tag-wikileaks"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258138"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258138\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":258142,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258138\/revisions\/258142"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/237070"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}