Jesus Christ on a 10-speed, Julian Assange held back from US extradition — not on free speech grounds, but because of the inherently torturous nature of the US prison system!
Way to start the publishing year with a bang!
The news came through from London around 11pm yesterday Australian eastern, and in a pretty torturous manner itself — a verbal summary of the magistrate’s own multi-part ruling in which every single ground of the Assange defence was thrown out, save for just about the last: his team’s claim that the regime Assange would be subject to would drive him to suicide. This the magistrate upheld, and it was enough to deny extradition.
That surprised everyone, in court and around the world, since everything leading up to it had been a celebration of the unchecked power of the state and a disdain for journalism. And then with a leap Assange was free(ish).
It must have surprised the hell out of the Americans, who can never quite see why everyone else sees their prison system as hellish.
The crucial part of the judgment against Assange was the magistrate’s rejection of two interlocked contentions: that the US case was a political prosecution which the UK had no right to extradite to, and that the substance of the accusations — 15 counts which attempted to establish that Assange had variously hacked, importuned or assisted with obtaining classified information — was spurious in terms of anything other than a political prosecution.
But the magistrate ruled that the political prosecution ban had been abolished by the UK government in 2003, and that the question of prosecutability of WikiLeaks’ actions was a matter for trial — a trial Assange could be extradited to since the political prosecution objection to extradition was now moot.
The judgment then went into a long consideration of various psychiatric reports of Assange’s mental health, and of the particular conditions of the US prison system “SAM” measures, which subject alleged high-risk prisoners — high risk of fomenting internal mayhem — to nightmarish, inhuman conditions; perpetual total solitary confinement in featureless boxes with rare, sporadic visits, and mail delayed by months.
It has little to do with internal security, and more the ultimate result of combining penitentiary conditions with the notion of the unperson status of America’s enemies.
Taking into account Assange’s psych reports amid the less sadistic but pretty grim UK Belmarsh incarceration — that he was severely depressed, on the autism spectrum, full of suicidal ideation and also possessed of the determination to kill himself if total despair enveloped — the magistrate therefore denied extradition.
Doubtless Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled solely according to the law, but it has to be said that it’s a verrrrry convenient result for the UK government, facing a storm of criticism from without and within over supporting the Trump administration’s prosecution of a case that effectively criminalises much of investigative journalism (the Obama administration had not pursued a case for that reason).
Not only does the ruling avoid a breach in the Atlantic alliance, but it paints Assange not as a heroic figure, or even a citizen possessed of rights, but as a victim of his psychological afflictions, thereby spared an ordeal that others can be exposed to.
It is an attempt to wholly depoliticise WikiLeaks’ work and avoid the repoliticisation that extradition would ensure.
Assange and his team would have hated including such a defence, but they were right to do so, giving UK justice an escape route from a substantial political dilemma. Or sections of UK justice.
The US will likely appeal the ruling and so it will start a journey up the chain, through the appeals process, towards the point where political and judicial power are close to fused.
But long before the next judgment is due, the Trump administration will have yielded to the Biden administration, (or a joint chiefs of staff emergency triumvirate). Biden has no love for Assange, having called him a “high tech terrorist” in 2010. But he may well take up the Obama line that the effect on “respectable” journalists would be too onerous, and get out that way.
Crucially, the judgment leaves the question of free speech v the state — and especially the US-UK Atlantic state — unanswered. While not criminalising leaks to journalists per se, the US prosecution sets near-impossible conditions for such. If a document flies in on the wind through The New York Times‘ window and lands on someone’s desk, you can publish what’s in it.
But as I understand the US case, almost anything else — urging someone to obtain documents, paying for a cab ride, a thumb drive, etc — contaminates the journalistic enterprise, leaving prosecution possible. It’s a chilling refinement of US state power, especially towards non-US citizens.
One suspects the real target is Assange 2.0, 3.0, those who harvest not 250,000 but 250 million documents, from one of the growing number of small states that now have whistleblower shield laws.
So a result combining US bastardry with British establishment gamesmanship, the special relationship at its most piquant. A lot of downside, with one huge upside: that Assange has slipped the noose and may be out of prison in days.
Heading into the second decade of this whole thing and it just keeps getting stranger and more momentous.
Has the UK made the right decision on Assange? And what should the Australian government do now? Let us know your thoughts by writing to [email protected]. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
Fetch your first 12 weeks for $12
Here at Crikey, we saw a mighty surge in subscribers throughout 2020. Your support has been nothing short of amazing — we couldn’t have got through this year like no other without you, our readers.
If you haven’t joined us yet, fetch your first 12 weeks for $12 and start 2021 with the journalism you need to navigate whatever lies ahead.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
I have a friend who is the CEO of a company based in the Persian Gulf – as a result of the Julian Assange leaks his PA was murdered!! This guy is no hero!!
Do tell us more about this friend of a friend. Urban myths are so delightful.
That response was deftness itself, SSR. Thank you.
Assuming that you are correct is is no less the case that the fellow died as a consequence of the truth.
I agree that the gutless bastard is no hero but he is (and has been) singled-out. That is the point.
I’d need a lot more detail about the victim and his/her background and activities before I gave any credence to that claim, Noel.
If and when such are supplied, DF, it should be smooth sailing to a concise conclusion.
I mean, it’s not as if things ever get at all murky in and around the Persian Gulf!
I’m with the Rat on this one, Noel. Names, dates, places and if possible, accounts from one or more reliable news sources. Anything else smacks of Infowars.
And if the US hadn’t been committing crimes then the documents wouldn’t have been released. So stop running cover for the actual criminals.
Too right. The famed intellectual, Noam Chomsky, is on record as saying that the biggest international terrorist organisation is run from The White House.
The world is just too nasty for you Noel, better keep your head you know where and not no. You’re also a liar.
That is utter bullsh*t.
Rubbish.
Noel Whittaker, even if this were true, and you’d have to give many more details to convince me that it is, by exposing war crimes, Assange has probably helped stop many more war crimes, which includes many murders. But if they are murders by US troops, maybe you think they don’t matter.
Would it be a stretch to suggest that “…the CEO of a company based in the Persian Gulf…” sounds a wee bit suss?
Not there to advance the common weal, I’ll be bound.
The British court made the correct decision. But Julian Assange isn’t a journalist, who should be concerned with accuracy and truth in reporting. Wikileaks was complicit in electing Trump.
Donald Trump, welcome to the resistance
Are you inferring that Trump supporters have no legal rights? If not, then what is the the point of the reference to Trump.
While you are at it, you might define ‘journalist’ if only for clarification.
Implying, not inferring.
The noun ‘journalist’ was enlisted and associated with the noun ‘accuracy’ (ignoring the non sequitur) hence the INFERENCE (and, thus, not an implication).
…that you made, not Wayne Robinson. You don’t know whether he inferred it or not.
(1) I *did* ask AND, if we poses the same standard of literacy, an inference exists. As an aside, (2) the fellow has yet to explain Assange’s “failing” a definition of a journalist.
If accuracy & truth in reporting were the criteria for defining journalists there would be very, very few of the species in the wild.
And none at all at NewsCorpse or NEIN Infotainment.
No he wasn’t. But Murdoch was in a very big way. Will you support his placement in indefinite solitary confinement?
By the same benchmark nor are Australian ‘journalists’ journalists, but simply political PR activists to spread mostly LNP/IPA agitprop ……
It wouldn’t matter if Assange were Good Soldier Schweik‘s apprentice in civvy street, the hubris of the Benighted States in deeming the world to be subject to its domestic laws invites a visit from Nemesis.
I just wish that she’d hurry up.
Welcome back, Crikey ! This is the best article yet on the UK extradition decision. The prosecution of Assange is important until it is no longer threatened.
But the real public issue is the lies that took us into the Gulf War and the secrecy put in place to hide those lies and the damage we did.
Many facts would still be hidden if Assange had not uncovered them. But those guilty of the lies, the blunders and the damage have escaped criticism.
WikiLeaks didn’t need to dump hundreds of thousands of unchecked / unverified files on to the Internet to achieve its sim of exposing wrongdoing. That’s not journalism.
Assange checked authenticity, carefully redacted all files and published the complete collection.
He got that right and you did not.
Patton’s wandering around the web attempting to sustain that blatant falsehood.
Seen earlier at Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations.
Whether the publication of the files was “journalism” is significant only if these charges are tried in USA. It is relevant to whether Assange is afforded protections of the freedom of the press.
Similarly, whether the publication is “reckless” in endangering those identified. Certainly, publication of numerous files was hazardous, but was a well-judged risk. The publication was necessary to expose war crimes and the risks were well and successfully managed by editing, redactions, and prior notification to US officials.
I disagree with Patton’s views on both matters. But these are technicalities.
Let’s talk about the Gulf War, as Assange did.
When truth/facts are crimes who can be adjudged innocent?
Who would want to be in such a world – it would be a somewhat precarious existence.
Certainly not “life as we know it” in the blessed White West.
I guess you didn’t want to hear what our SAS have been up to either. Good name, The Lucky General, lucky because no generals will ever be held accountable.
A few days ago I was reading a detailed account of the defamation case brought by Roberts-Smith (funded by Stokes), against Nine, McKenzie and Masters, over the Afghanistan war crimes reporting. Much of the account was centred on applicable and related law, and its operation.
It is anything but a stretch to see how (e.g.) McKenzie could be the subject of an extradition demand by the US.
One mention that caught the eye was that of a US operative who witnessed specific acts involved Roberts – Smith and underlings (incl ‘contracted Afghans), while involved ‘on loan’ with the Australians.
That witness has proven to be very difficult to get to ‘stay the course’.
Perhaps this country should try to have the “US operative” extradited from a 3rd country.
Sauce, goose, gander kinda thing?
No doubt the USA would comply, toot sweet, seeing as how it is such a stickler for international law, the ICC at the Hague, the Convention on the Law of the Seas, climate, territorial integrity & marine zones, as well as any number of patent & copyright agreements.
It is so nice to be in the pocket of such a trust worthy ally.
And all we have to do is provide cannon fodder and obsequious, unthinking UN votes.
As well as play Dep’ty Dawg sheriff with China.
Of course the US never ratified the Hague, Law of the Seas and not certain about the rest. Its the ultimate hypocrite nation.
Right. Nor did the then president of the United States have to concoct a deliberate lie to justify his desire to invade somewhere in the Middle East. Nor did the then prime minister of Australia have to knowingly support and rebroadcast that lie to support his own desire to run snivellingly behind the United States into an immoral and illegal adventure.
Just from curiosity, general, what (specifically) was the last fact that you checked?
I recall the first article from WLeaks. It was a careful exposure of corruption at all levels in Kenya. Abuse of international grants was just the beginning. Hillary Clinton clapped and cheered.
As a homework exercise for your fact-checking skills, I will leave the content of the 2nd article for you but suffice to say say that Hillary was enraged by the exposure and thus it has remained.
As an aside, Paton was a natural and didn’t require luck but he did not suck up either. Eisenhower was promoted over him for purely political reasons and certainly not for comparative aptitude.
During the time when he was collaborating with the Guardian, he had given the passcode to the journalists there including the establishment stenographer Luke Harding, who then published it in their book without his consent (and in direct breach of their undertaking to him not to do so), and at great risk to anyone named in the files. There was no other way of warning those named that their security had been fatally compromised.
If anyone tried putting that simple, vital fact in the comments (CiF) on any Assange articles in that, now sadly supine, paper it will be deleted within minutes.
Oh, wait, comments are not allowed on Assange articles.
Just as here comments are disabled for certain topics.
The CP Scott claim, shown at the top of CiF, “Opinion is Free but Facts are Sacred” should be read in the Orwellian sense, “Some facts are more sacred than others”.
Today’s edition (Cky) is a case in point
Going by some awful hack pundit commentary, murder/torture can be ok legit if you can get away with it by helping to murder a messenger with a dirty anecdote or two, plus claim the high sociopathic moral grounds on mental health destroying conditions..Welcome back Crikey & thanks for the support of Assange..Watch the Guardian safely crawl out from under its rock and ride once again on its parasitical bandwagon of milking the Assange story every which low down gutter way it can (all in the best possible ‘progressive’ tastes, of course)
The British court has indeed made the right decision, and I am pleased that there is now more than a glimmer of hope for this tortured soul. Journalist or not, for all his arguable mis-steps, Assange has thus far paid a massive price.
The court made the wrong decision because it found him guilty of what Washington has accused him of.
On the way to “setting him free”? Not likely. The US government, for its appeal, will put together a list of promises about Assange’s treatment if he’s handed over. The UK courts will say that’s ok then, and off he goes. After that it’s too late anyway even if anyone can find out what is being done to him. And if then he does manage to kill himself, or there’s some similar grim consequence, what can anyone do except say “Told you so”?
It’s rather like these wonderful environmental protection conditions imposed on various mining corporations. What use are they once irreversible damage is done?
‘Promises’ that like most ‘commitments’ and ‘we take seriously’ utterances, are completely unenforceable, meaningless and hollow. Surely no judicial officer would take such a promise seriously.
One more Epstein coming up…
Hopefully Russia will give him asylum, Mexico has offered but the drug lords said no.