WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is expected to attend a crucial hearing in London on Monday that could mark a pivotal moment in his years-long legal battle to avoid extradition to the United States.
London’s High Court is expected to decide whether to accept US assurances that Assange, 52, will get a fair trial and not face the death penalty and can therefore safely extradite him to the US. The decision could pave the way for Assange to be transferred across the Atlantic to face 18 charges – all but one under the Espionage Act – over Wikileaks’ release of thousands of confidential military records and US diplomatic cables.
These include secret US military reports on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, released in 2010. WikiLeaks also published a US military video showing what it described as the “indiscriminate killing of more than a dozen people”, including two employees Reuters news report by Apache helicopters in Iraq. capital, Baghdad.
The US stated that the disclosure of confidential documents put the lives of its agents in danger. The upcoming hearing could take the US one step closer to prosecuting the largest security breach in its military history, setting a precedent that could have ripple effects for global media freedom.
What assurances did the UK court seek from the US?
The British court looked to two sets of assurances from the US to decide whether extradition is legal under domestic and international law.
In 2021, he asked the Joe Biden administration to provide diplomatic assurances that Assange would not be detained in a maximum security prison or subject to “Special Administrative Measures,” which allow the US government to restrict a prisoner’s contact with the outside world. Critics say these measures could result in people being held in solitary confinement for long periods of time.
During the court’s last hearing in March, it gave the US three weeks to provide assurances that Assange, who was born in Australia, would be entitled to claim his First Amendment right to freedom of expression in a US trial and that there would be no any prospect of new charges carrying the death penalty.
The US responded to both requests with written assurances, paving the way for the decisive extradition hearing that will take place on May 20.
How reliable are US guarantees?
Critics say U.S. assurances are unreliable because they contain caveats. Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counterterrorism and criminal justice in Europe, said they were “inherently unreliable because the US government gives itself a way out”.
In court documents made public in July 2021, the US gave written assurances to the UK that Assange would not be immediately detained in a maximum security prison, but reserved the right to do so based on his conduct. “The way the US government has treated Assange so far strongly indicates that they would find something he would do that would supposedly require them to put him in a maximum security prison,” Hall told Al Jazeera.
Similarly, the most recent set of assurances issued on April 16 stated that Assange would have the ability to invoke and rely on the First Amendment during the trial, but included the caveat that a decision on its applicability would be “solely up to the jurisdiction of the US courts.” ”.
“What this means is that the question of whether or not he will be able to defend free speech will be left to the court,” Hall said. “Then again, this is not a guarantee.”
Assange’s wife Stella, who is also a human rights lawyer, said the assurances were “blatant and evasive words”. “The diplomatic note does nothing to alleviate our family’s extreme anguish about their future, their grim expectation of spending the rest of their lives isolated in a US prison for publishing award-winning journalism,” she said.
What might the High Court of London decide?
The High Court in London could decide that the guarantees provided by the US are sufficient and agree to the extradition request.
Alternatively, the UK court could find the US assurances unsatisfactory and grant Assange permission to launch an appeal against extradition.
In a written ruling on March 26, British judges found that Assange had a “real prospect of success” in fighting extradition on three of the grounds he was trying to appeal. They said such an appeal may not go ahead in the UK, however, if the US government provides “satisfactory assurances” to them.
What could the court’s decision mean for Assange?
If the High Court in London refuses the US assurances on Monday, its appeal based on these three grounds identified by the High Court judges could proceed.
However, if the court accepts the US guarantees, Assange could be extradited to the US. Their only remaining option would then be to appeal the extradition to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Strasbourg-based court could decide to issue interim measures, or an injunction against sending Assange to the US, until it can decide whether the UK government is fulfilling its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights by deciding to extradite. Assange.
The ECHR’s provisional measures would prevent immediate extradition, allowing Assange to remain in the UK until the European court makes a decision. This process can take several years, but the court has the power to speed up the process if it considers that a person is being held in harsh prison conditions. It is unclear whether UK authorities would continue to detain Assange at Belmarsh maximum security prison during the dispute, or whether he would be released on bail.
If the ECtHR decides not to order provisional measures, Assange would be extradited and face charges in the US.
What are the implications of the High Court ruling for press freedom?
Observers and human rights organizations say that if the court decides to extradite Assange, it would set a dangerous precedent and have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of editors and journalists around the world.
“It’s not just Julian Assange who is in the dock,” Hall said. “Silence Assange and others will be gagged.”
US authorities, however, say Assange is not being prosecuted for publishing the leaked materials, but for the criminal act of conspiracy to obtain them illegally and hacking.
The case exposes the tension between the US Espionage Act – which criminalizes a wide range of activities that critics say may bear little resemblance to classic espionage and which takes no account of the defendant’s motives – and the First Amendment, which protects those who publish classified information without government authorization.
In an expert testimony presented to the UK court in 2020, Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the case crossed “a new legal frontier”.
“The government’s use of the Espionage Act against members of the government who provide confidential information to the press poses a serious threat to the press’ ability to inform the public about matters related to war and security,” said Jaffer.
“In this context, I believe the prosecution of Mr. Assange should be understood as a deliberate effort… to dissuade the journalism that is vital to American democracy. The successful prosecution of him by the government would certainly have that effect.”
This story originally appeared on Aljazeera.com read the full story
