Disrespecting UK Courts: How to Not Achieve Assange's Extradition
Assange appeal granted on two grounds, likely to proceed in October or before.
[Craig Murray after the preliminary appeal case.]
Published: 2024-05-23
To be extradited to the US to stand trial on the 18 charges (17 under the draconian 1917 Espionage Act, and 1 under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [CFAA]), Julian Assange must receive equivalent protection under the law in the state to which extradition is requested (the US) as from that which he is to be extradited (the UK). This is UK law, and despite all of the embarrassment to which UK judges have submitted their judiciary, it seems that they may finally have identified an abuse to which they will not permit their institution to suffer.
Judges Jeremy Johnson and Victoria Sharp ruled that Mr. Assange may appeal his extradition on two grounds: that he may be subject to the death penalty or that he may not be provided with a freedom of speech defense (the 1st Amendment). Should, in the substantive appeal which will follow this preliminary hearing, Assange's legal team successfully argue that he may with some likelihood suffer the death penalty or that he risks being denied a freedom of speech defence then extradition will be prohibited.
The death penalty issue is inconsequential as description to the UK court of Assange's likely penalty will be 4 to 6 years imprisonment. It is the US lack of categorically stating that its Department of Justice [DoJ] will not argue that Mr. Assange may not invoke a 1st Amendment defence on which the hearing will hinge.
Were this case to have shown any form of legal normality one would expect that whichever judges are appointed to hear the appeal would not consider one word from the US between when Judges Johnson and Sharp ruled, until lawyers representing the US open their mouths in the appeal court room.
The preliminary hearing is concluded. Every opportunity was provided to the US to make its case. But, the persecution via lawfare of Julian Assange has never been a legal normality. Quite the opposite, it has been a series of legal absurdities from the Swedish Red Notice for extradition there being issued by a prosecutor rather than judge, and even then after the initial investigation had been abandoned, to the Magistrate hearing the initial case even when the world knew that Assange's legal team had been spied on by the CIA while preparing the case.
For a further list of the absurd history of the illegalities involved in the Wikileaks founder's abuse, please see Chris Hedges' article. To it one could add that the CFAA charge is based upon the retracted false testimony of a convicted pedophile, and yet still the US maintains this charge. Or that it is known to computer experts that the claim made by the US in that charge was technically impossible at the time at which the alleged offense occurred. Yes, it is that insane. Everything else is about journalism; publishing official documents to hold the US government to account for its wanton illegality. Were people harmed because of Wikileaks publications? No, as admitted by the US in the Manning trial. Did Wikileaks release those unredacted cables first? No, as admitted by the owner of the website which did, Cryptome. On, and on, and on, false ginned up allegation after obvious civil rights abuse, one after the other.
Is Assange a journalist? Who cares? He's been issued many prizes by associations of journalists.
There is, and indeed was, a ray of light in this Dickensian farce, to borrow a phrase from each of the articles recommended for you to read. For that ray of light, see Mr. (hopefully soon, MP for Blackburn) Craig Murray's account of the proceedings in the court.
He saw that hope from Justice Victoria Sharp. When counsel for the US protested the defense responding to argument, she remarked “Given what is at stake here,” as she informed all legal representatives that she would hear as much as they had to say. Mr. Murray believes that the judges have begun to see the legal gravitas of the case. He also noted that the skericks of understanding and leniency which have been displayed by judges in the case have all come from female justices.
In his segment on Judging Freedom, Scott Ritter saw hope coming from a different corner. His characterization of the "assurances" provided by the US were consistent with the analysis provided by Assange's legal team; there were none for the crucial freedom of speech/1st amendment issue. It was provided by some alsorand at the local embassy, rather the Mr. Kromberg who is prosecuting for the US DoJ. This point was made explicitly by Edward Fitzgerald, representing Assange. Mr. Ritter's point was that the British judiciary may well feel slighted by the lack of seriousness with which they are being treated by the DoJ.
Mr. Murray suggested that Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr may well be appointed to hear the appeal. Given this, then either or both of these rays of hope may shine on the forthcoming appeal.
That this entire 12+ year long process has been a travesty of justice is of no doubt. That Mr. Assange may finally walking free to be a father to his two sons and husband to his long suffering wife Stella may be its conclusion.
If justice were to prevail those behind the scenes and more visible from the DoJ and C.I.A, like Kromberg and Pompeo, would be hauled before the US courts and prosecuted for fraud, waste and abuse and have to pay personally and publicly to recompense the Assange family.
Free Julian Assange!
or support this work via Buy Me A Coffee or Patreon.
Sources
Something Changed in the Assange Case, Craig Murray, Consortium News, 2024-05-22
The Slow-Motion Execution of Julian Assange Continues, Chris Hedges, ScheerPost, 2024-05-21
Assange Wins Right to Appeal on 1st Amendment Issue, Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 2024-05-20
We are on the way to victory, Craig Murray in London, Free Assange, 2024-05-20
Scott Ritter ： Reality in Ukraine, Napolitano interviews Ritter, Judging Freedom, 2024-05-22
Discussion of the Assange case begins at: 00:06:17
Copyleft: CC0
Thank you Craig! Shared!