British court’s ruling on Julian Assange extradition is life-threatening

Stella Assange, the wife of Julian Assange, vehemently condemned the British court’s decision to approve her husband’s extradition to the United States, describing it as “an attack on Julian’s life.”

Alongside Amnesty International and a number of human rights activists, she criticised the judgement made by the British court, yesterday, March 26. The court announced that it would seek assurances from the Eastern District of Virginia court to ensure that Assange would not face the death penalty.

Furthermore, the UK court insisted on obtaining a written commitment that the former WikiLeaks founder would receive the same rights as a US citizen under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, which safeguards free speech and press freedom.

Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, told Al Jazeera that the assurances in question appear, at face value, to be uncontroversial, and he cannot foresee the US declining to provide such assurances.

The decision of the UK High Court by Justice Jeremy Johnson was damning.

“If assurances are not given then we will grant Assange leave to appeal without a further hearing … If assurances are given, then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.”

Assange anger

Rothwell was angered by Justice Johnson’s comments in court yesterday.

“Assange now essentially joins a queue of others seeking to have their appeals heard and determined. It is doubtful whether these processes would be completed within six months, or possibly by the end of 2024.”

This situation has provoked anger among Assange’s friends and advocates, who argue that merely contending with extradition – first from the Ecuadorean embassy in London for seven years, then from the Belmarsh maximum security prison for another five – has already amounted to punishment enough.

Stefania Maurizi, an investigative journalist at the leading Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano, who has worked with WikiLeaks, told Al Jazeera that the UK justice lost an opportunity to do justice.

“Prominent human rights organisations, like Amnesty International, have repeatedly denounced that assurances are inherently unreliable. The British justice keeps hiding behind the fig leaf of assurances.”

Maurizi contends that the extradition process was not an endeavour for justice but rather a punitive measure aimed at deterring other whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and publishers.

Assassination attempts

“According to protected witnesses and a comprehensive investigation by Yahoo News, the CIA sought to eliminate Julian Assange through extrajudicial means, including attempts to assassinate or abduct him.

“British justice is gradually extinguishing him using solely legal methods.”

Assange was reported to be in such poor health that he was unable to attend Tuesday’s proceedings, not even via video link.

An emotional Stella Assange said she was astounded by the British court’s decision.

“The courts recognise that Julian is exposed to a flagrant denial of his freedom-of-expression rights, that he is being discriminated against based on nationality as an Australian, and that he remains exposed to the death penalty.

“And yet, what the courts have done has been to invite a political intervention from the United States, to send a letter saying, it’s all OK.”

In January 2021, a British judge ruled against Assange’s extradition to the US, citing concerns that he might attempt suicide due to near-total isolation.

Stella condemned yesterday’s decision as “an attack on Julian’s life.”

Supporters of Assange gathered outside the court, chanting his name.

“There’s only one decision – no extradition,” and “Free, Free Julian Assange.”

The 17 charges of espionage from a district court in the US state of Virginia stem from Assange’s publication in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified US military documents on WikiLeaks.

US prosecutors allege that Assange actively sought whistleblowers in US intelligence agencies and conspired with one – US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning – to hack the Pentagon’s servers to retrieve those documents.

War crimes

These files revealed evidence of what many consider to be war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, including video footage of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that resulted in the deaths of 11 people, including two Reuters journalists.

Stella Assange spoke to the world’s media outside the court.

“This is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and they will try to kill you.”

Julian Assange has maintained that he acted as a publisher of information deemed to be in the public interest. However, according to the US indictment, he is portrayed as a spy – a perspective deemed erroneous by free speech experts, who argue it constitutes a misapplication of the 1917 US Espionage Act.

International law professor at Columbia University Jameel Jaffer stated that the UK High Court’s ruling presents the US government with another opportunity to do what it should have done long ago – drop the Espionage Act charges.

“Prosecuting Assange for the publication of classified information would have profound implications for press freedom because publishing classified information is what journalists and news organisations often need to do to expose wrongdoing by government.”

Espionage Act

In prior testimony regarding Assange’s case, Jaffer has criticised the application of the Espionage Act by US courts since its inception during World War I. He describes its provisions as “extremely broad” and asserts that they criminalise activities that may not have been intended to harm the US.

“The act imposes severe penalties on leakers regardless of whether they intended to harm US security. The act disregards whether the benefits of disclosure outweigh the harms to the public.”