Assange Extradition Delayed Unless US Provides ‘Assurances’ He Won’t Be Executed for Revealing the Truth
By Diego Ramos ScheerPost, March 26, 2024, https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/26/assange-extradition-delayed-unless-us-provides-assurances/
If the U.S. fails to file assurances in three weeks, Assange will be granted permission to appeal.
The British High Court has accepted three elements of Julian Assange’s appeal against his extradition to the U.S., delaying the process for some time. Unless the U.S. provides “assurances” for Assange’s appeals, including protection against the death penalty, the WikiLeaks founder will be granted a new appeal.
Despite U.S. officials promising Assange would not be subject to capital punishment, the court ruled “nothing in the existing assurance explicitly prevents the imposition of the death penalty.”
The U.S. government has until April 16 to file these assurances and if done so, Assange will have until April 30 to respond and the U.S. is to answer back by May 14, with a hearing considering the leave to appeal on May 20. If the U.S. fails to file assurances in three weeks, Assange will be granted permission to appeal.
Judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson of the British High Court agreed with the following points in Assange’s appeal:
- a) if extradited, the applicant might be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his nationality (contrary to section 81(b) of the 2003 Act), and
- b) as a consequence of a), but only as a consequence of a), extradition is incompatible with article 10 of the Convention. [In the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression.]
- The applicant has established an arguable case that the Secretary of State’s decision was wrong because extradition is barred by inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.
The judges dismissed appeal of Assange’s other points including:
- The UK-US Extradition treaty (the Treaty) prohibits extradition for a political [offense] (and the [offenses] with which the applicant is charged fall within that category).
- The extradition request was made for the purpose of prosecuting the applicant on account of his political opinions (contrary to section 81(a) of the 2003 Act).
- Extradition is incompatible with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) (which provides there should be no punishment without law).
- Extradition is incompatible with article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial).
- Extradition is incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (right to life, and prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).
The judges acknowledged that extradition for “political opinions” has been barred in English law, citing the Extradition Act 1870 and 1989. However, in examining the Extradition Act 2003, the judges separate “political [offense]” from “political opinions,” stating “[The Extradition Act 2003] says nothing, however, about preventing extradition for a political [offense]. Although there may be a degree of overlap, the two are separate concepts.”
Stella Assange, Julian Assange’s wife, spoke outside the court stating, “The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case, which should never have been brought.”
Significantly, the court also rejected “fresh evidence” from the Assange team with regards to the Yahoo News article written by Zach Dorfman, Sean D Naylor and Michael Isikoff that exposed a plot by former CIA Director Mike Pompeo and others to kidnap or assassinate Assange during his time at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Despite the evidence exposed by the article, the judges ruled, “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.”
Assange enters his fifth year of imprisonment inside Belmarsh Prison, where his physical and mental health has significantly deteriorated.
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- May 2024 (260)
- April 2024 (366)
- March 2024 (335)
- February 2024 (345)
- January 2024 (375)
- December 2023 (333)
- November 2023 (342)
- October 2023 (366)
- September 2023 (353)
- August 2023 (356)
- July 2023 (362)
- June 2023 (324)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Leave a comment