[Act-ma_discuss] Terrible news: Brit court rules Julian Assange can be extradited to US to face espionage charges

[Amy Hendrickson]

Julian Assange can be extradited to US to face espionage
charges, court rules


WikiLeaks co-founder's fiancee says appeal will be launched,
as Amnesty International says decision is a 'travesty of
justice'

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/10/julian-assange
-can-be-extradited-to-us-to-face-espionage-charges-court-rul
es?utm_term=61b3565d0ba8f58286629d3af5c0bfbb
<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/10/julian-assang
e-can-be-extradited-to-us-to-face-espionage-charges-court-ru
les?utm_term=61b3565d0ba8f58286629d3af5c0bfbb&utm_campaign=G
uardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_emai
l>
&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Emai
l&CMP=GTUS_email

 <https://www.theguardian.com/profile/benquinn> Ben Quinn
 <https://www.twitter.com/BenQuinn75> @BenQuinn75

Fri 10 Dec 2021 06.55 EST

*          

*          

*          

Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, the high court
has ruled as it overturned a judgment earlier this year.

The decision deals a major blow to the
<https://www.theguardian.com/media/wikileaks> WikiLeaks
co-founder's efforts to prevent his extradition to the US to
face espionage charges, although his fiancee immediately
indicated that an appeal would be launched.

The senior judges found that a then-district judge had based
her decision earlier this year on the risk of Assange being
held in highly restrictive prison conditions if extradited.

But in their ruling on Friday, they sided with the US
authorities after a near-unprecedented package of assurances
were put forward that Assange would not face those strictest
measures either pre-trial or post-conviction unless he
committed an act in the future that required them.

Lord Burnett said: "That risk is in our judgment excluded by
the assurances which are offered. It follows that we are
satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge,
she would have answered the relevant question differently."

He added: "That conclusion is sufficient to determine this
appeal in the USA's favour."

Allowing the appeal, the judges ordered that the case be
remitted to Westminster magistrates court with a direction
that a district justice send the case to the secretary of
state, who will decide whether Assange should be extradited
to the US.

 

Responding to the decision, Stella Moris, Julian Assange's
fiancee, said: "We will appeal this decision at the earliest
possible moment."

She described the high court's ruling as "dangerous and
misguided" and a "grave miscarriage of justice."

"How can it be fair, how can it be right, how can it be
possible, to extradite Julian to the very country which
plotted to kill him?" she said.

The case against the 49-year-old relates to WikiLeaks's
publication of
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-ca
ble-leak-diplomacy-crisis> hundreds of thousands of leaked
documents about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as
diplomatic cables, in 2010 and 2011.

Alarm at the high court ruling was expressed by advocates of
press freedom, with Amnesty International describing the
ruling as a "travesty of justice".

Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International's Europe director,
said: "By allowing this appeal, the high court has chosen to
accept the deeply flawed
<https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/07/the-us-diplo
matic-assurances-are-inherently-unreliable-julian-assange-mu
st-be-released/> diplomatic assurances given by the US that
Assange would not be held in solitary confinement in a
maximum security prison."

"If extradited to the US, Julian Assange could not only face
trial on charges under the Espionage Act but also a real
risk of serious human rights violations due to detention
conditions that could
<https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur45/4450/2021/en/>
amount to torture or other ill-treatment. The US
government's indictment poses a grave threat to press
freedom both in the United States and abroad."

Rebecca Vincent, director of international campaigns at
Reporters Without Borders and the organisation's UK bureau
director, tweeted: "This is an utterly shameful development
that has alarming implications not only for Assange's mental
health, but also for journalism and press freedom around the
world."

The high court was told earlier this year that blocking
Assange's removal from the UK due to his mental health
risked "rewarding fugitives for their flight".

James Lewis QC, for the US, said the district judge based
her decision on Assange's "intellectual ability to
circumvent suicide preventive measures", which risked
becoming a "trump card" for anyone who wanted to oppose
their extradition regardless of any resources the other
state might have.

The assurances offered by the US in a diplomatic note in
February included one that Assange would not be subject to
"special administrative measures" or held at a maximum
security "ADX" facility, such as one in Florence, Colorado,
either during a pretrial period or after any conviction.

The US also said it will consent to an application by
Assange, if he is convicted, to be transferred to his native
Australia to serve any sentence and that he would receive
appropriate clinical and psychological treatment while in US
custody.

The US assurances were described in the ruling by the high
court judges on Friday as "solemn undertakings offered by
one government to another."

Lord Burnett of Maldon, lord chief justice, and Lord Justice
Holroyde added in their ruling: "There is no reason why this
court should not accept the assurances as meaning what they
say. There is no basis for assuming that the USA has not
given the assurances in good faith."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://act-ma.org/pipermail/act-ma_discuss_act-ma.org/attachments/20211210/8f8fe03b/attachment-0001.html>