The Ongoing and Unjustifiable Persecution of Julian Assange

9.9.20

A van bearing the message ‘Don’t extradite Assange’, photographed today, September 9, 2020, in Waterloo (Photo: Andy Worthington).

Please support my work as a reader-funded journalist! I’m currently trying to raise $2500 (£2000) to support my writing and campaigning on Guantánamo and related issues over the next three months of the Trump administration. If you can help, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal.





 

A hugely important struggle for press freedom is currently taking place in the Old Bailey in London, where, on Monday, three weeks of hearings began regarding the proposed extradition to the US of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. In 2010 and 2011, WikiLeaks published documents leaked by a serving member of the US military — Bradley, now Chelsea Manning — that exposed evidence of war crimes committed by the US and, in the case of my particular area of expertise, Guantánamo.

The Guantánamo revelations were contained in classified military files relating to almost all of the 779 men held at the prison by the uS military since it opened in January 2002, which, for the first time, explicitly revealed how profoundly unreliable the supposed evidence against the prisoners was, much of it having been made by prisoners who had made numerous false statements against their fellow prisoners. I worked with WikiLeaks as a media partner for the release of the Guantánamo files, and my summary of the files’ significance can be found in the article I wrote when they were first published entitled, WikiLeaks Reveals Secret Guantánamo Files, Exposes Detention Policy as a Construct of Lies.

I should add that I am one of the witnesses for the defence, and will be appearing in court sometime over the next few weeks to discuss the significance of the Guantánamo files. See this post by Kevin Gosztola of Shadowproof listing those taking part, who include Professor Noam Chomsky, Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, journalists John Goetz, Jakob Augstein, Emily Dische-Becker and Sami Ben Garbia, lawyers Eric Lewis and Barry Pollack, and Dr. Sondra Crosby, a medical doctor who examined Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he lived for almost seven years after claiming asylum in 2012.

The defence case (see here and here) and the prosecution case (see here) have been made available by Bridges for Media Freedom, which “works to educate the public and key stakeholders about threats to media freedom across the entire sphere of modern digital reporting,” and the organization is also making available witness statements as and when the witnesses appear — to date, US professor of broadcast journalism Mark Feldstein (see here and here), lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, the founder of Reprieve (see here), Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University (see here), and Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (see here).

Despite all this — and the weeks of expert testimony to come — the blunt truth is that these hearings shouldn’t be taking place at all. In making publicly available the documents leaked by Manning, WikiLeaks was acting as a publisher, and, while governments obviously don’t like evidence being published regarding their secrets and crimes, one of the defining differences between an allegedly free society and a dictatorship is that, in a free society, those who publish leaked documents critical of their governments are not punished by legal means for doing so. In the US, the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, is meant to prevent what is currently happening in the case of Julian Assange.

In addition, in publishing the documents leaked by Manning, Assange and WikiLeaks were not working alone; instead, they worked closely with a number of prestigious newspapers, so that, if a case were to be made that Assange and WikiLeaks were engaged in criminal activity, then so too were the publishers and editors of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and all the other newspapers around the world who worked with Assange on the release of these documents, as I explained when Assange was first arrested and charged last year, in articles entitled, Defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks: Press Freedom Depends On It and Stop the Extradition: If Julian Assange Is Guilty of Espionage, So Too Are the New York Times, the Guardian and Numerous Other Media Outlets, and, in February this year, in an article entitled, A Call for the Mainstream Media to Defend Press Freedom and to Oppose the Proposed Extradition of Julian Assange to the US.

The US’s alleged basis for prosecuting Assange is the Espionage Act of 1917, which has been widely criticised. A report in 2015 by the PEN American Center found, as Wikipedia explained, that “almost all of the non-government representatives they interviewed, including activists, lawyers, journalists and whistleblowers, ‘thought the Espionage Act had been used inappropriately in leak cases that have a public interest component.’” As PEN explained, “experts described it as ‘too blunt an instrument,’ ‘aggressive, broad and suppressive,’ a ‘tool of intimidation,’ ‘chilling of free speech,’ and a ‘poor vehicle for prosecuting leakers and whistleblowers.'”

President Obama had considered seeking Julian Assange’s extradition, but had correctly concluded that doing so would constitute an unprecedented and unacceptable assault on press freedom. As Charlie Savage explained in a New York Times article when Assange was charged, the Obama administration had “weighed charging Mr. Assange, but rejected that step out of fears that it would chill investigative journalism and could be struck down as unconstitutional.”

Donald Trump and his administration, however, had no such qualms, and when they decided to proceed with an extradition request for Assange, the British government allowed its disdain for the WikiLeaks founder to override what should have been its own defense of the media’s freedom to publish material that is in the common interest, but that governments may not want published, as part of the necessary functioning of a society that recognises the need for checks and balances on absolute power, in which the media can, and should play a major part.

Despite the very obvious assault on press freedom that the Assange case represents, the US government — and, presumably, its supporters in the British government — are pretending that what the case is actually about is criminal activity on Assange’s part in securing the information that was later published, and a disregard for the safety of people in the files whose names were revealed.

The first of these charges, unsealed on the day Assange was arrested (April 11 last year), alleged that he had tried to help Manning to hack into a government computer to avoid detection, a charge carrying a maximum five-year sentence, which had actually been included in Manning’s trial.

However, the 17 espionage charges covered new territory, “focused,” as Charlie Savage described it, “on a handful of files that contained the names of people who had provided information to the United States in dangerous places like the Afghanistan and Iraq war zones, and authoritarian states like China, Iran and Syria.”

As Savage added, “The evidence laid out in the indictment against Mr. Assange mapped onto information presented by military prosecutors in the 2013 court-martial trial of Ms. Manning. Prosecutors in her case also alleged that her actions endangered the people whose names were revealed in the documents when Mr. Assange published them, though they presented no evidence that anyone was killed as a result.”

That last point ought, surely, to be crucial, but Savage noted that a Justice Department official “declined to say whether any such evidence now exists, but stressed that prosecutors would need to prove in court only what they say in the indictment: that publication put people in danger.”

If extradited and successfully prosecuted, Assange faces a 175-year sentence, which strikes me as outrageously excessive for having “put people in danger,” but then everything about this case is excessive, not least in the way that the US government feels entitled to change the rules whenever it wants to.

In June, for example, the US dropped the existing indictment and submitted a new one, with additional claims that Assange had tried to recruit other hackers — as though submitting a superceding indictment like this was perfectly normal behavior, when it is anything but.

As the extradition hearing began on Monday, Mark Summers QC, one of Assange’s lawyers, called the delivery of the superseding indictment “abnormal, unfair and liable to create real injustice.” As the Guardian explained, Summers said that the additional material “had appeared out of the blue,” and ”presented extra allegations of criminality which it claimed on their own might be separate grounds for extradition, such as stealing data from banks, obtaining information on tracking police vehicles, and supposedly ‘assisting a whistleblower [Edward Snowden] in Hong Kong.’”

As Summers proceeded to explain, “This is essentially a fresh extradition request,” which was, he said, “presented at short notice at a time when Assange has been ‘inhibited’ from speaking to his defence lawyers.” He also said that Assange and his lawyers believed that the additional material was introduced and an act of desperation, because “the US saw the strength of the defence case and thought they would lose.” He asked Judge Vanessa Baraitser “to ‘excise’ or dismiss the belated extra US indictments,” and also sought to delay the extradition hearing, but Judge Baraitser refused.

It remains to be seen if, as the case progresses, those defending Assange can manage to persuade the judge to deny the US’s extradition request. It seems unlikely, but a key aspect of the extradition treaty is that it is not supposed to be for political offences, even though that is what the US government actually seems to be claiming, particularly through its use of the Espionage Act. As another of Assange’s lawyers, Edward Fitzgerald QC, explained, in the defence argument, which he wrote, the prosecution of Assange is “being pursued for ulterior political motives and not in good faith”.

As he further explained “The [US] request seeks extradition for what is a classic ‘political offence.’ Extradition for a political offence is expressly prohibited by article 4(1) of the Anglo-US extradition treaty. Therefore, it constitutes an abuse of this court’s process to require this court to extradite on the basis of the Anglo-US treaty in breach of the treaty’s express provisions.”

* * * * *

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose music is available via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and see the latest photo campaign here) and the successful We Stand With Shaker campaign of 2014-15, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here, or here for the US, or you can watch it online here, via the production company Spectacle, for £2.55), and for his photo project ‘The State of London’ he publishes a photo a day from eight years of bike rides around the 120 postcodes of the capital.

In 2017, Andy became very involved in housing issues. He is the narrator of the documentary film, ‘Concrete Soldiers UK’, about the destruction of council estates, and the inspiring resistance of residents, he wrote a song ‘Grenfell’, in the aftermath of the entirely preventable fire in June 2017 that killed over 70 people, and he also set up ‘No Social Cleansing in Lewisham’ as a focal point for resistance to estate destruction and the loss of community space in his home borough in south east London. For two months, from August to October 2018, he was part of the occupation of the Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden in Deptford, to prevent its destruction — and that of 16 structurally sound council flats next door — by Lewisham Council and Peabody. Although the garden was violently evicted by bailiffs on October 29, 2018, and the trees were cut down on February 27, 2019, the resistance continues.

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, The Complete Guantánamo Files, the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

11 Responses

  1. Andy Worthington says...

    When I posted this on Facebook, I wrote:

    Here’s my latest article, summarising the profound inappropriateness of the US case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as his extradition hearing begins at the Old Bailey in London.

    The US government, under Donald Trump, is seeking to extradite him to face espionage charges that would lead to him spending the rest of his life in a US prison, if convicted, and is doing so by focusing on alleged claims involving hacking, and the harm potentially caused by WikiLeaks’ revelations, but the bottom line remains that this is a full-frontal assault by Trump and his administration on press freedom.

    Very specifically, as I note, “while governments obviously don’t like evidence being published regarding their secrets and crimes, one of the defining differences between an allegedly free society and a dictatorship is that, in a free society, those who publish leaked documents critical of their governments are not punished by legal means for doing so.”

  2. Andy Worthington says...

    Here’s Defend WikiLeaks on the Russian allegations that continue to dog Assange and WikiLeaks: https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/07/25/russiagate-smears-against-wikileaks/

  3. Andy Worthington says...

    Natalia Rivera Scott wrote:

    Thank you, Andy.
    I struggle with indifference and apathy here in Mexico towards Julian and you know you’re one of my heroes so thank you for writing about him. I shared in many groups already including my page for Julian – México con Julian: https://www.facebook.com/AssangeMexico/

  4. Andy Worthington says...

    You’re welcome, Natalia. There has been so much negative press that it obscures the heart of this story – the unprecedented effort by the US under Trump to prevent publication of anything that exposes US government wrongdoing. I sometimes wonder how much of Manning’s leaks would have been published by the mainstream media – WikiLeaks’ partners – if WikiLeaks didn’t exist, and they had got them instead.

  5. Andy Worthington says...

    Anna Fauzy-Ackroyd wrote:

    I just have never been able to comprehend the ‘Assange risked lives’ smear narrative when in fact it could be far more easily argued and proven that Julian Assange saved lives. Lives that would have been lost if Wikileaks had not contributed to the end of the occupation of Iraq by turning public opinion and providing essential evidence of what was really going on. More lives that would have been lost in Guantanamo, in drone assassinations, as so clearly presented by Clive Stafford Smith on Tuesday at the Old Bailey, if this evidence had not been published. Furthermore, unleashing an illegal attack on Iraq risked up to a million lives with actual evidence of 10s of 1000s of deaths. Wikileaks exposed 1,500 additional violent deaths of Iraqi civilians that had not been included in the body count up until then. And there are no known casualties from the log publications!! And Assange is the one on trial!! It defies anything logical. Just a show trial to make an example of a publisher who dared to follow his conscience and belief in holding governments to account through transparency. And who succeeded in finding a way which then resulted in the publishing of logs revealing war crimes, corruption, torture and murder for the whole world to see!!

  6. Andy Worthington says...

    Thanks for your comments, Anna. Very well said.

  7. Andy Worthington says...

    Anna Fauzy-Ackroyd wrote:

    P.S. Thanks for the great write up and the work that you do to expose and document these crimes.

  8. Andy Worthington says...

    Thanks, Anna, but what a long struggle it is, unfortunately. These are dark times we’re living in.

  9. Andy Worthington says...

    Natalia Rivera Scott wrote, in response to 4, above:

    Andy, Manning and Assange are heroes. She was tortured terribly and he has sacrificed so much. Media here ignores them both. People need to realize this is about us all. Our freedom of press is in danger and under terrible attack.

  10. Andy Worthington says...

    And, while not wishing to underplay what Wikileaks did, it was Chelsea Manning who leaked all those documents, because of her conscience, Natalia. And she’s been made to pay by her country. I think when the focus is on Chelsea Manning, it’s much easier to recognize Assange and Wikileaks as the publishers, not actually as anything more insidious.

  11. Andy Worthington says...

    Here’s a Spanish translation via the World Can’t Wait’s Spanish website – ‘La continua e injustificada persecución de Julian Assange’: http://worldcantwait-la.com/worthington-continua-e-injustificada-persecucion-de-julian-assange.htm

Leave a Reply

Back to the top

Back to home page

Andy Worthington

Investigative journalist, author, campaigner, commentator and public speaker. Recognized as an authority on Guantánamo and the “war on terror.” Co-founder, Close Guantánamo and We Stand With Shaker. Also, photo-journalist (The State of London), and singer and songwriter (The Four Fathers).
Email Andy Worthington

CD: Love and War

The Four Fathers on Bandcamp

The Guantánamo Files book cover

The Guantánamo Files

The Battle of the Beanfield book cover

The Battle of the Beanfield

Stonehenge: Celebration & Subversion book cover

Stonehenge: Celebration & Subversion

Outside The Law DVD cover

Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo

RSS

Posts & Comments

World Wide Web Consortium

XHTML & CSS

WordPress

Powered by WordPress

Designed by Josh King-Farlow

Please support Andy Worthington, independent journalist:

Archives

In Touch

Follow me on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Subscribe to me on YouTubeSubscribe to me on YouTube

The State of London

The State of London. 16 photos of London

Andy's Flickr photos

Campaigns

Categories

Tag Cloud

Afghans in Guantanamo Al-Qaeda Andy Worthington British prisoners Center for Constitutional Rights CIA torture prisons Close Guantanamo Donald Trump Four Fathers Guantanamo Housing crisis Hunger strikes London Military Commission NHS NHS privatisation Periodic Review Boards Photos President Obama Reprieve Shaker Aamer The Four Fathers Torture UK austerity UK protest US courts Video We Stand With Shaker WikiLeaks Yemenis in Guantanamo