[[link removed]]

THE PROMISE THAT COULD SEAL ASSANGE’S FATE  
[[link removed]]


 

Tim Dawson
May 20, 2024
Morning Star
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ There have been assurances that Assange does not face the death
penalty, but no clear answer as to whether the US first amendment will
apply to him; regardless, he should be released and returned to
Australia. _

,

 

When Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp take their seats
in London’s Royal Courts of Justice today, it will be to deliver
their verdict of the quality of a promise.

Much rests on their judgement — the ability of journalists all over
the world to reveal wrongdoing based on classified information, the
reputation of the US government, and the life of Julian Assange.

The promise arises from the last occasion these distinguished jurists
considered this case. In February they heard what was expected to be
Assange’s final plea that his extradition to the US be not allowed.

To the surprise of many, instead of a decision, the judges sought
assurances from across the Atlantic.

One question was a technicality. Was it possible that the US would
execute Assange? A previous British home secretary had failed to seek
this clarification at an earlier stage. Washington’s answer was,
wholly predictably, that the electric chair (or similar) would not be
deployed in this case.

The other question was more interesting: “Is [Assange] permitted to
rely on the first amendment … by reason of his nationality?”

The amendment referred to here is the first amendment to the US
constitution, adopted into law in 1791 — two years after the
constitution itself. It guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of
the press.

Clarification was necessary because of a warning issued by Mike Pompeo
in 2017 when he was director of the CIA. He would later serve as
Donald Trump’s secretary of state. “Julian Assange … pretended
[that] America’s first amendment freedom shield[s] [him] from
justice. [He] may have believed that, but [he’s] wrong. Assange is a
narcissist who has created nothing of value.”

Pompeo’s disturbing argument rests on the opening words of the US
constitution: “We, the people of the United States … secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves.” According to this argument, the
US constitution’s protections apply only to citizens of that country
— and certainly not to Australians.

This potential for unfairness clearly troubled the British judges.
They wanted to know if the US government would guarantee that, despite
Assange’s nationality, he would be protected just as would be a US
citizen.

The answer, when it came, was this: “Assange will have the ability
to raise and seek to rely upon the rights and amendments given upon
the first amendment. A decision as to its applicability will be
entirely in the purview of the US courts.”

It is hard not to join Assange’s wife Stella in dismissing these as
“weasel words.” The judges, of course, will be required to take a
wholly dispassionate view.

Doing this will require them to form an opinion of whether, whatever
their actual words, the US government can be relied upon to tell the
truth — and here, the evidence to consider is as plentiful as it is
troubling.

During the extradition hearings, we learned that operatives close to
the CIA bugged the Ecuadorian embassy while Assange was resident,
listening in on his meetings with lawyers and even tried to steal a
baby’s nappy to undertake a DNA test.

Since then, Yahoo News reproduced the testimony of more than 30 former
CIA staff who said that the agency had devoted hours of planning to
find a way to murder Assange while he was in London.

More revealingly still, during the extradition hearings we learned
from the barristers acting for the US just how their paymaster
exploits weasel words. The KCs argued repeatedly that the protections
apparently provided in simple terms on the first page of the US/UK
Extradition Treaty, are, in fact, meaningless window dressing,
presumably intended to provide false reassurance to those without
expensive legal training.

All of this and more must form part of the consideration of Johnson
and Sharp as they weigh both the quality of the assurance and the
probity of the administration from which it has been issued.

Should they find themselves unpersuaded by the US “assurances”
then they will order a full appeal hearing. This would probably take
place later this year, or in early 2025 and will require several
further weeks in court.

Should the opposite view prevail, then the British legal process will
be at an end. A slight chance remains that the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) might consider Assange’s appeal — his application
has already been entered. The vast majority of disputes referred to
the ECHR do not receive a hearing, however, as they don’t involve
contested points of law. The most likely outcome in this case is that
Assange will be on a plane to Virginia within days.

Of course, there is still a chance that this whole murky episode could
be resolved by a man who last practised law in 1972 — President Joe
Biden. In April, a reporter asked the president what he thought of
Australia’s request that Assange be returned to his home country.
“We are considering it,” he replied. US diplomats have provided
similar hints in the past.

Surely this would be the best solution. Whatever your opinion of
Assange, he has already languished in prison for more than five years.
Down this path, the US could start to rebuild its reputation as a
guarantor of free speech, and the world’s journalists could return
to illuminating societies’ darker corners, free from the risk of a
lifetime behind bars.

_Tim Dawson is the deputy general secretary of the International
Federation of Journalists._

* Julian Assange
[[link removed]]
* whistleblowers
[[link removed]]
* freedom of the press
[[link removed]]
* Journalism
[[link removed]]
* UK
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]