nuclear-news

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.

March 29, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Chris Hedges: The Crucifixion of Julian Assange

No new hearing will allow his lawyers to focus on the war crimes and corruption that WikiLeaks exposed. No new hearing will permit Julian to mount a public-interest defense. No new hearing will discuss the political persecution of a publisher who has not committed a crime.

The court……… offered the U.S. an easy out — give the guarantees and the appeal is rejected.

If the assurances are provided, lawyers for both sides have until April 30th to make new written submissions to the court. At that point, the court will convene again on May 20 to decide if the appeal can go forward. 

British courts for five years have dragged out Julian Assange’s show trial. He continues to be denied due process as his physical and mental health deteriorates. This is the point.

By Chris Hedges ScheerPost,  https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/27/chris-hedges-the-crucifixion-of-julian-assange-2/

Prosecutors representing the United States, whether by design or incompetence, refused — in the two-day hearing I attended in London in February — to provide guarantees that Julian Assange would be afforded First Amendment rights and would be spared the death penalty if extradited to the U.S. 

The inability to give these assurances all but guaranteed that the High Court — as it did on Tuesday — would allow Julian’s lawyers to appeal. Was this done to stall for time so that Julian would not be extradited until after the U.S. presidential election? Was it a delaying tactic to work out a plea deal? Julian’s lawyers and U.S. prosecutors are discussing this possibility. Was it careless legal work? Or was it to keep Julian locked in a high security prison until he collapses mentally and physically? 

If Julian is extradited, he will stand trial for allegedly violating 17 counts of the 1917 Espionage Act, with a potential sentence of 170 years, along with another charge for “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” carrying an additional five years.

The court will permit Julian to appeal minor technical points — his basic free speech rights must be honored, he cannot be discriminated against on the basis of his nationality and he cannot be under threat of the death penalty.

No new hearing will allow his lawyers to focus on the war crimes and corruption that WikiLeaks exposed. No new hearing will permit Julian to mount a public-interest defense. No new hearing will discuss the political persecution of a publisher who has not committed a crime.

The court, by asking the U.S. for assurances that Julian would be granted First Amendment rights in the U.S. courts and not be subject to the death penalty, offered the U.S. an easy out — give the guarantees and the appeal is rejected. 

It is hard to see how the U.S. can refuse the two-judge panel, composed of Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jeremy Johnson, which issued on Tuesday a 66-page judgment accompanied by a three-page court order and a four-page media briefing. 

The hearing in February was Julian’s last chance to request an appeal of the extradition decision made in 2022 by the then British home secretary, Priti Patel, and many of the rulings of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser in 2021. 

If Julian is denied an appeal, he can request an emergency stay of execution from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under Rule 39, which is given in “exceptional circumstances” and “only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm.” But it is possible the British court could order Julian’s immediate extradition prior to a Rule 39 instruction, or decide to ignore a request from the ECtHR to allow Julian to have his case heard there.

Julian has been engaged in a legal battle for 15 years. It began in 2010 when WikiLeaks published classified military files from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — including footage showing a U.S. helicopter gunning down civilians, including two Reuters journalists, in Baghdad. 

Julian took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London for seven years, fearing extradition to the U.S. He was arrested in April 2019 by the Metropolitan Police, who were permitted by the Embassy to enter and seize him. He has been held for nearly five years in HM Prison Belmarsh, a high-security prison in southeast London.

The case against Julian has made a mockery of the British justice system and international law. While in the embassy, the Spanish security firm UC Global provided video recordings of meetings between Julian and his lawyers to the CIA, eviscerating attorney-client privilege. 

The Ecuadorian government — led by Lenin Moreno — violated international law by rescinding Julian’s asylum status and permitting police into their embassy to carry Julian into a waiting van. The courts have denied Julian’s status as a legitimate journalist and publisher. The U.S. and Britain have ignored Article 4 of their Extradition Treaty that prohibits extradition for political offenses. The key witness for the U.S., Sigurdur Thordarson — a convicted fraudster and pedophile — admitted to fabricating the accusations he made against Julian for money.

Julian, an Australian citizen, is being charged under the U.S. Espionage Act although he did not engage in espionage and was not based in the U.S when he was sent the leaked documents.

March 28, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

The Decision That Wasn’t A Decision

Extradition has been delayed as UK High Court of Justice urges US government to submit “assurances” or face an appeal

Yesterday, the UK High Court ruled on Julian’s request to appeal extradition to the United States. The result? The decision has effectively been put on hold until the U.S. submits assurances – previously deemed by Amnesty as “inherently unreliable” – including that he will not be prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality and not receive the death penalty.

In a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Stella said: “The UK High Court recognise that Julian is exposed to a flagrant denial of his freedom of expression rights, that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his nationality and that he remains exposed to the death penalty. And yet, what they have done is to invite a political intervention from the United States to send a letter saying ‘it’s all okay’…”  https://stellaassangeofficial.substack.com/p/the-decision-that-wasnt-a-decision?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=800783&post_id=142999556&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

March 28, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment