The prospect of the United States– a foreign government– imposing its laws on British soil to snatch a foreign journalist should scare anyone who is serious about press freedoms. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by A. Makki)

Julian Assange is an Australian journalist in the United Kingdom, and the founder of WikiLeaks. He published documents that were given to him by a US soldier called Chelsea Manning, which showed US war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and much more.

The United States want to extradite Assange from the UK to America, and put him on trial for publishing these classified documents. They are threatening him with 175 years in prison.

The reason this case is so serious is because it essentially makes journalism illegal.

The United States claims Assange asked Manning for classified documents and that this is a crime. It's not.

The US alleges that Assange having classified documents in his possession and publishing them is a crime. It's not.

Asking for classified documents; protecting sources, these are things journalists do every single day around the world.

But because these files were so embarrassing to the United States and exposed the brutality of their war crimes, they are threatening Assange with almost two centuries in prison; and to do it, they are accusing him of being a “spy” and a “hacker”, charging him with 17 counts under the “Espionage Act”, and with one count of “Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion”.

The first page of the superseding indictment against Assange

The goal of this indictment is to make an example out of Assange, and make other journalists afraid to publish things that the public has a right to know.

If extradited, Assange would be placed in the worst prison conditions imaginable, “Special Administrative Measures” (or SAMs): A strict regime of solitary confinement, no contact with other prisoners allowed, and barely any contact with your family. SAMs are internationally recognized as torture. Julian would be sent to the worst prison in America, ADX Florence, a super-maximum security facility in Colorado.

On January 4, 2021, British judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked Assange's extradition because US prison conditions would be so oppressive in his current state as to drive him to suicide.

Nevertheless, despite blocking the extradition on health grounds, she agreed with all the political and trumped-up charges.

I have attended all of Assange’s court hearings and saw the smears against him debunked by dozens of expert witnesses. But the judge still chose to side with the United States. She chose to essentially criminalize journalism, even drawing dangerous equivalences between the US Espionage Act and Britain’s Official Secrets Act (OSA).

After this, the United States went to the English High Court to appeal her ruling and won by providing empty promises that they would supposedly treat Assange well– even though the United States has a history of violating extradition assurances. I exposed this when I published classified documents from David Mendoza’s extradition from Spain to the US, a case previously cited in court by Julian’s lawyers.

After the US succeeded in overturning the lower court’s ruling in Dec 2021, there was only one thing left: A signature from the Home Secretary, who allowed the extradition to go ahead.

The above is everything that took place between 2020 and 2024, which brings us to the latest hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice in February 2024.

Assange's lawyers are asking the High Court for permission to appeal on two grounds:

Point 1: To appeal the ruling of the lower court from Jan 4, 2021.

Assange’s lawyers argued that the judge was correct to block Assange's extradition on health grounds, but she was wrong to agree with all the political charges (equating him with a “hacker” and a “spy”).

They’re saying very plainly: This case is undemocratic, it criminalizes journalism, and doesn't take into account the fact that the documents Assange published expose enormous US war crimes that the public had the right to know about.

(See for example the “Collateral Murder” video published by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks: Footage from a US gunship crew laughing as they slaughter Iraqi civilians, among them children and reporters).

Another claim made by the United States is that Assange “harmed informants” by publishing unredacted cables. Ironically, this was proven false by the United States’ own military when they court-martialed Chelsea Manning (the soldier that gave the files to Assange). The US military couldn’t find a single example of anyone having been harmed by the disclosures.

The assertion by the United States that Julian Assange simply published all these documents without censoring or redacting names simply isn't true: I listened to many journalists tell the court how they spent countless hours meticulously redacting names with Assange.

Assange's lawyers are also arguing that the judge in the lower court failed to undertake a balancing act. She blindly accepted the United States' premise that the lives of informants– who weren't even harmed– are more important than the people killed and tortured by the United States. This is tantamount to saying: The United States should be allowed to continue committing these war crimes in secret; that it's somehow okay for them to butcher people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the public have no right to know.

But even if what the United States is saying were true, these documents were not published first by Assange. John Young, the owner of a website called cryptome.org testified to the court that he was the one who published the documents first, and the United States never prosecuted him or asked him to take them down.

This demonstrates that the whole case against Assange is selective, political, and has nothing to do with the law.

John Young, owner of cryptome.org, tells the Old Bailey that he published the unredacted cables first. The US government never prosecuted him or requested their removal. A screenshot with date and timestamp corroborates this and proves Cryptome posted the documents before WikiLeaks

It is important to remember that Julian Assange is a journalist, a publisher. He is not a government employee or a soldier who signed a contract that binds him to government secrecy. He is under no obligation to be quiet.

Julian Assange isn't even from the United States, and has never lived or worked there. He does not owe the United States anything.

The prospect of the United States– a foreign government– imposing its laws on British soil to snatch a foreign journalist should scare anyone who is serious about press freedoms, anti-imperialism, and a British judiciary free of US influence. The extra-territorialization of US laws has been a hallmark of the US War on Terror.

The Espionage Act that Assange is being charged under was created during World War I, in 1917. It has always been used as a political tool against dissidents such as Eugene Debs, or whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, who exposed the true extent of the US war in Vietnam, and NSA mass surveillance.

If you're charged under the Espionage Act, you're also forbidden from arguing a public interest defense. This means that even if you expose colossal government crimes, you still go to prison.

Point 2: The Home Secretary was wrong to allow the extradition

This constitutes the second part of Assange’s appeal: It is illegal in Britain to extradite someone to another country, knowing they could face the death penalty.

If the Home Secretary, who has the final say on extraditions, is aware of such a risk, they are compelled to bar the extradition.

It is inconceivable that Priti Patel was unaware of who Julian Assange is, and the likelihood he would be killed in the United States. Once in US jurisdiction, the US could pile on additional charges, or simply execute him, as espionage is a capital offense.

Even without a specific death sentence, at 52 years old, even a 30-year bid is akin to a death sentence.

The hollow assurances given by the United States do not preclude the death penalty. And on top of that, the Home Secretary didn’t even bother asking for assurances that would.

So how could the Home Secretary agree to send Assange to a foreign country that so clearly wants to see him dead?

Mike Pompeo, who back then was head of the CIA, and then-president Donald Trump, launched this legal case against Julian Assange. In the past, Donald Trump had called for Assange to be given the death penalty, while Mike Pompeo proclaimed Assange “has no First Amendment rights”. After WikiLeaks published a trove of CIA documents, dubbed the Vault 7 files, Mike Pompeo declared war on WikiLeaks by publicly labeling it a “non-state hostile intelligence service”

All these political denunciations of WikiLeaks and Assange were then followed up with threats against him and his family. As we heard in court in 2020 from protected witnesses, the CIA had drawn up plans to potentially kidnap or assassinate Julian.

The United States is accusing Julian Assange of “espionage”. Normally, this is where the case should be thrown out, because espionage is considered a textbook political offense. And it is forbidden to extradite someone for a political offense under the US-UK Extradition Treaty, Art 4.

Customary extradition treaties have always forbidden extradition for political offenses such as “espionage” and “treason”. And this line of defense has been used before in court to successfully block extraditions.

Extraditions for political offenses are forbidden under Article 4 of the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003

Here is where the problem arises:

The Extradition Act, which is the implementation of the US-UK treaty inside British law, is missing this section. This is likely due to the fact it was passed at the height of the “War on Terror” in 2003, giving the Americans carte blanche to snatch people, drag them to the US and throw them in dungeons.

At the time of its passage, many criticized the Extradition Treaty as being extremely one-sided in favor of the United States.

The Extradition Act is the implementation of the US-UK Extradition Treaty inside British law.

No matter how you look at Assange’s case, it is unfair and illegal.

The United States wants to prosecute Julian Assange under US law, but at the same time deny him any protections under US law, such as free speech. If Assange has no First Amendment rights as a foreign national, then how can he be punished as a foreign national – who is not even in the US? This is such a flagrant double standard, and selective application of the law.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act. Upon examination, it is clear that Julian’s rights are being flagrantly violated

Article 5 protects one from arbitrary detention.

Because this is a political case, it would be a violation of the Extradition Treaty to send Julian to America. Therefore, he has no reason to be in prison right now, and is therefore being arbitrarily detained in violation of his Article 5 rights.

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial.

We know the United States spied on Assange’s conversations with his lawyers when he was inside the Ecuadorian embassy; stole his electronic devices; and collected medical and legal records.

In 2020, I sat in court with Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We listened to the submissions of two protected witnesses who confirmed they had spied on Assange because the security company they worked for, UC Global, had been contracted by the CIA to do so. They also discussed plans to potentially kidnap and poison Julian Assange and harvest DNA from his baby.

To spy on someone’s privileged conversations with their lawyers, and to use tainted evidence in court is scandalous beyond words, and violates the fundamentals of due process in any jurisdiction. Any judge would have thrown this case out from day one.

We also know Assange will not get a fair trial in America because the jury will be selected from a pool of people who work for the CIA, NSA, or have friends and family working in the intelligence community. These are the very same people whose crimes Julian Assange exposed.

The court in Virginia that issued the charges and would hold this trial is used specifically for this reason; because the jury is biased and the government knows it can't lose. It is already 100% guaranteed that he will get convicted and go to prison.

Additionally, the United States could use secret evidence against Julian Assange, that he wouldn't even be allowed to view due to it being “classified”.

Article 7 protects one from being punished retroactively. The case against Julian Assange is unprecedented: No publisher in America has ever been prosecuted, let alone convicted for publishing classified documents.

This case criminalizes journalism, and therefore violates Article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression.

Assange's lawyers went over the ECHR repeatedly because it is incorporated into British law, meaning the court is obliged to follow it. Not only that, but this was their way of hinting to the judges: If you don’t give us permission to appeal, we will go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, and that court will look upon your decision unfavorably.

(The United Kingdom is a founding and current member of the European Council, which is separate from the European Union).

Assange’s lawyer, Mark Summers, argued very clearly: The Strasbourg court will see that a) these US war crimes were real; b) they were happening on the ground at the time, and; c) by publishing these documents Assange altered the United States’ behavior: The helicopter massacres like in the “Collateral Murder” video stopped, and the Iraq war came to an end.

Assange’s team put together a very compelling defense during this week’s hearing.

As they went back to the 2021 ruling, we heard many of the same arguments presented at the Old Bailey in 2020 – and that is a good thing because they are crucial points that cut to the core of the issue: Journalism is not a crime; the crimes committed by the United States are far greater than any alleged “harm” to informants; and the public has a fundamental right to know.

It was refreshing to see the High Court Justices (Jeremy Johnson and Victoria Sharp) actually express interest in what was being said, and asking pertinent questions, as opposed to the previous judges thus far who were either silent, indifferent, or hostile to Assange.

These are the interjections of the High Court Justices that stuck out the most to me last week:

– Justice Johnson: If a journalist in this country was aware of significant crimes by a government intelligence agency, and asked an employee there for information, would this be a prosecutable offense? (This question caught the US lawyer Claire Dobbin off guard).

– Justice Johnson: Once someone is in US jurisdiction, is there anything preventing the US from piling on new charges and handing down a death penalty?

The government lawyer replies: There is essentially nothing to stop the US from doing this (confirming our worst fears that Assange could be killed once in America).

– Justice Johnson asks Dobbin if there is any evidence to support the idea that foreign nationals are given equal rights or treatment to US citizens? Dobbins says ‘no’. Once again the prosecution openly confirm that Assange will be treated unfairly: he will get hit with all the nasty parts of US law, and get none of the basic rights like free speech.

– Justice Sharp asks Mark Summers: are the names mentioned in the WikiLeaks publications the people who participated in war crimes and torture? Summers: Yes that is exactly what these people were engaged in and supporting.

While all this plays out in court, Assange is slowly dying in prison

The same judge that blocked Assange’s extradition because of his precarious health condition presided over his bail hearing two days later on Jan 6, 2021, which I also attended.

The judge obviously appreciated that his health was bad enough to bar extradition. Yet she refused to let him out on bail, despite the strong guarantees put forward, and the risk that his health would worsen in prison– which it did.

A few months later, during a hearing in October 2021, I could barely recognize Julian Assange. We then learned from his wife Stella that he had suffered a mini-stroke during the hearing.

Julian was put in Belmarsh prison on purpose by the security state. Belmarsh is known as “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay”; the worst prison in England and notorious for housing violent criminals and terrorists. It is no place for journalists convicted of bail infractions, or held on remand pending extradition. There is simply no reason for him to be in prison, let alone a Category A (maximum security) prison, locked up 23 hours a day.

It is important to note that before being taken to Belmarsh, Assange was forced to go to the Ecuadorian embassy in London and seek political asylum. He stayed in what is a tiny apartment for 7 years out of fear the United States would try to grab him and take him to America the moment he set foot outside – and unfortunately, he was right.

Because of this prolonged persecution, his health has gradually declined. He is in poor physical and mental shape, and has been deprived of a normal family life. The times I saw him in court he looked very unwell.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled that this confinement amounts to arbitrary detention. Many UN experts, doctors, lawyers, and NGOs all agree that Assange's human rights have been violated and the conditions he was put in, both inside the Embassy, and then in Belmarsh, amount to torture.

The aim of the United States is to kill Julian Assange, either in America, or slowly in an English prison; making him jump from one court to the next. The process is the punishment.

Why? Because Julian Assange exposed the brutality of the United States’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; their kidnapping, rendition and torture programs; their abuse of Guantanamo Bay prisoners; and the strongarming of their own “allies” to protect CIA torturers.

Unfortunately, this is how the United States and Britain treat journalists. The mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel, who profited immensely from working as media partners with WikiLeaks and publishing Assange’s explosive materials, could have launched dozens of campaigns and public appeals by now to secure his freedom, but did nothing.

This entire case is so damning to the political and media establishment that it is being conducted like a secret trial in a kangaroo court.

I have attended all the hearings in this case and have seen how unnecessarily difficult they make it for journalists to get access, and for NGOs and politicians to observe the case. The proceedings have been plagued since the start with technical difficulties, making it impossible for people to hear or see anything if they are attending remotely, or just next door in an overflow room.

I cannot say how the High Court will rule, but if Assange is not afforded permission to appeal, his lawyers can temporarily block the US from putting him on a plane with a Rule 39 order, and then take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

This again, however, can take years to pan out, all the while Assange's life hangs in the balance as the United Kingdom keeps him locked up in a maximum security prison at the behest of the CIA and the US government.

Julian Assange is the most famous political prisoner in the world, but time is running out.

This case is without question the biggest attack on free speech and journalism. I am chronicling these events as a witness to warn current and future generations that if we do nothing, journalism will die.