LONDON (Bywire News) - In April 2019, the 48-year old Australian founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, was arrested from within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange had spent the previous seven years under the embassy’s protection to avoid facing questioning by Swedish authorities after two WikiLeaks volunteers in the country made complaints of sexual misconduct against him and a fourth accusation of rape (three of the four complaints were eventually dropped as no trial took place within the five years required by Swedish law, the rape charge remains active due to its ten year statute of limitations.) The Swedish authorities have indicated they would like to continue investigating the rape charge and therefore will try again to extradite Mr Assange.

Prior to the arrest, Assange’s legal team claimed that any attempt to remove him from the Embassy would be both ‘illegal’ and ‘a violation of international refugee law,’ stating:

"It will be a sad day for democracy if the UK and Ecuadorian governments are willing to act as accomplices to the Trump administration's determination to prosecute a publisher for publishing truthful information.”

A woman walks past an artwork depicting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on a building near Westminster Magistrates Court, London, Britain, October 21, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

Since its inception in 2006, non-profit organisation WikiLeaks has exposed many wrongdoings, illegal activities and human rights violations by making countless classified military and government documents, emails, videos and diplomatic cables available to the public. These have included an expose on US detention camp Guantanamo Bay, where some prisoners were designated as off-limits to the international community of the Red Cross (something the US military had previously denied) and the release of the infamous and horrifying classified US military footage from an attack on Baghdad during the Iraq war. This material exposed alleged war crimes that included US military forces laughing as they fired from a gunship at two Reuters journalists, civilians, children and Iraqi emergency services, killing many.

In 2010, a 22-year-old US Army Intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley) was arrested and charged with leaking classified information garnered from government systems (including the Baghdad airstrike video along with around 260,000 classified US embassy cables – all of which were subsequently published by WikiLeaks.)

Assange and his organisation refused to confirm Manning as the whistleblower, stating:

"We never collect personal information on our sources"

But did, however, go on to offer Manning the full protection of the organisation including extensive legal assistance.

Demonstrators hold placards during a protest outside of Westminster Magistrates Court, where extradition case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is held, in London, Britain, October 21, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

In February 2013, Manning confessed in open court to providing archives of military and diplomatic files to WikiLeaks and pleaded guilty to 10 criminal counts in connection with the material. In her statement, she recounted how she joined the military, became an intelligence analyst in Iraq and decided that certain files should become known to the American public to prompt a wider debate about foreign policy.

Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning speaks to reporters outside the U.S. federal courthouse shortly before appearing before a federal judge and being taken into custody as he held her in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. March 8, 2019. CREDIT: REUTERS/Ford Fischer/News2Share

WikiLeaks and Assange have always claimed that theirs is a mission consistent with the core values of good journalism - a desire to seek and expose the truth – and that their information gathering methods are consistent with those of other journalists across the globe in a highly digital age. They also insist, as all good journalists should, that the organisation go to great lengths to protect the identity of their sources.

In March 2018, almost a year before his arrest in London, a sealed indictment was issued by the US Department of Justice against Assange. In November of the same year, US prosecutors accidentally revealed that Assange had been indicted under seal in US federal court, the revelation coming as the result of an error in a different, unrelated court filing.

Five months later, on the day of Assange’s arrest from the Ecuadorian Embassy, this US indictment was unsealed, revealing that Assange has been charged with ‘conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,’ a minor infringement carrying only a five-year maximum prison term. The specific allegation against Assange (that he attempted to help Chelsea Manning cover her tracks by making it look like the security leak, for which she was charged, was being done by an outsider hacking into the system rather than an insider with authorised access) had already been used in the Manning trial and was considered a very weak allegation by many.

Demonstrators hold banners during a protest outside of Westminster Magistrates Court, where the extradition case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is held, in London, Britain, October 21, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

On 22 May 2019, however, the US went on to file 17 additional counts against Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917 - a decision that has been heavily criticised by publishing giants including the Washington Post and the New York Times who insist that Assange faces charges for actions considered standard practice for many modern journalists, including persuading official sources to leak information which is in the public interest. The charges against Assange carry a combined jail term of 170 years.

UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid signed an extradition order in May 2019 that opened the way for the courts to consider whether Assange should be sent to face trial in the US. This first extradition hearing is due to take place in early 2020, though it’s likely that any pro-extradition outcomes will be appealed all the way to the supreme court, meaning that Assange is likely to remain incarcerated in the UK for the foreseeable future.

It’s worth noting, however, that should a UK general election takes place before Assange’s extradition, the order will have to be made again. If this were to happen, Assange has some cause to hope that the decision would be overturned, particularly if a Labour Government were to triumph (party leader Jeremy Corbyn is long-time critic of US foreign policy and an outspoken supporter of Assange who, shortly after his arrest, appealed to the UK government to block his extradition at all costs.)

Assange’s jail term for failing to adhere to his bail conditions regarding the sexual allegations made by the two Swedish women ended on 22 September 2019. In a court hearing, however, he was deemed to pose a ‘significant flight risk’ and remains incarcerated at HM Prison Belmarsh, a high security facility that houses some of the UK’s most dangerous and violent criminals and terrorists, while he awaits extradition. His future is uncertain but tied inescapably to the future of global journalism.

Vaughan Smith (In 2010, Smith gave refuge to Julian Assange, the founder of whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, first at the Frontline Club and then at his country house) said in a recent interview with Bywire News:

“I think Julian Assange has done a huge public service. But the nature of what he has done, in doing a sort of host, or a sort of dead letterbox for whistleblower material and then pushing it out to the public domain has meant he has become the target for the US, British intelligence services and governments who have been embarrassed by the leaks or whistleblower material he has put out there.

“Our governments, our courts (British) have put him (Assange) into Belmarsh Prison. Our terrorist prison, our least pleasant prison. And they have done that to present to the public that he is a danger to them, but this simple not true.”

By filing charges under the Espionage Act, the US Department of Justice has challenged the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in defence of government secrets. The First Amendment dates to 1791 and is part of the American Bill of Rights, a charter that protects the nation’s key freedoms. The US government, for example, is prohibited from making laws which represent an establishment of religion and must protect the right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble and to petition against the government to redress grievances.

The Obama administration had previously debated charging Assange under the same act but had decided against this out of fear it could have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional.

The 102-year old Act was passed by Congress shortly after the US entered World War I and made it a federal crime to attempt to undermine the US armed forces during a war, or to assist the war efforts of the nation’s enemies in any way.

While the intention of the act was to define and punish acts of spying during wartime, it necessarily placed new limits of American’s First Amendment rights, as anyone who publicly protested wars or military drafts could be open to prosecution. The non-specific language used in the act also made it possible for the US government to target anyone who opposed the war in thought or deed, whether these were pacifist, neutralists, communists, anarchists or socialists. To date, only 53 people (including Chelsea Manning) have been charged under this act.

Only a year after it was passed, the act was extended to make it a federal crime for anyone to use disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language against the US government, the Constitution, the armed forces or the American flag – increasing the scope of the act to potential peacetime prosecution for citizens. Although this addition was repealed in 1920, many people still faced similar charges during growing post-war fears of communism.

In the late 1940s to the late 1950s, a campaign led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, now known as ‘McCarthyism’, saw a period of heightened political repression, with the dissemination of fear from both communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. During the McCarthy era, hundreds of Americans were accused of being "communists" or "communist sympathizers"; they became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private industry committees and many suffered loss of employment, ruined reputations or even prison terms (though most punishments came about through trial verdicts that were later overturned as unconstitutional or illegal.)

The Espionage Act does not specifically criminalise national security breaches by journalists, however no previous administration has tried to put it to the test. Trump’s government will no doubt draw conviction from the fact that the law does explicitly ban the publication of government secrets and doesn’t specifically protect the press, giving them enough of a grey area to hope for a successful prosecution of Assange.

The Trump administration is also taking another avenue of attack by arguing that through encouraging whistleblower Chelsea Manning to hack classified military information from government servers and by publishing this material with no regard for Manning’s safety or any other individual implicated or involved, Assange does not fit the definition of a journalist and therefore does not necessarily have to be considered as such during any legal proceedings. This is an accusation that Assange’s legal team will likely strongly dispute.

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers keynote remarks at the Shale Insight 2019 Conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 23, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

One line of defence for Assange is to raise issues under the European Convention on Human Rights as the extradition treaty between the USA and UK has a clause citing the exemption of political prisoners.

Assange has certainly become something of a political hero to some, compared to the likes of Nelson Mandela for the heroic way he has exposed alleged government crimes and unlawful wars. Many are also sympathetic towards Assange for the many indignities and violations he has suffered to avoid prosecution by those who oppose him who are hellbent on punishing his exposure of their alleged crimes and misdoings.

Some believe that the UK should be doing more to protect Assange from American Extradition, particularly as in July 2019, the US Attorney General William Barr reinstated the death penalty in the country for federal crimes over 16 years. Before Assange’s April arrest, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno was assured by two UK home secretaries that he would not be extradited to a country where he could face capital punishment, with letters signed by Jeremey Hunt and Boris Johnson both confirming that, under human rights law, a person cannot be extradited if they could face either torture or death.

In fact, the UN have made numerous statements in defence of Assange, stating that if his extradition to the US happens as planned he will face numerous potential human rights violations and that he has the right to expect asylum and refuge within the UK, given that he faces hundreds of years in prison should he be convicted on American soil, a potential sentence highly disproportionate to his alleged offences.

Irrespective of whether the activities of WikiLeaks are considered journalism or simply data dumping, the details of the indictment against Assange by the US Department of Justice could potentially risk the principles which are essential to exposing government crime, and the future of investigative journalistic practices.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, current editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks and an Icelandic investigative journalist appointed by Assange in September 2018 has said the actions that Assange took were those of an investigative journalist and not a criminal cyber-hacker.

At Assange’s most recent court appearance, in October 2019, he was described as a shadow of his former self; mumbling, stuttering and struggling to say his own name. With high profile supporters including former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and documentary maker John Pilger amongst his supporters in the packed public gallery, and with dozens of protestors gathered outside the courtroom, Assange’s barrister Mark Summers QC talked of a ‘direct link’ between the reopening of the investigation and the Trump administration, stating:

"Our case will be that this is a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information. It is legally unprecedented."

At the hearing, Assange himself told the judge that he feels he is up against a ‘superpower with unlimited resources’ and appeared to be fighting back tears as he added ‘I don’t understand how this is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t access my writings. It’s very difficult where I am to do anything.’

Demonstrators hold banners during a protest outside of Westminster Magistrates Court, where a case management hearing in the U.S. extradition case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is held, in London, Britain, October 21, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

“They are saying journalists and whistleblowers are enemies of the people. They have unfair advantages dealing with documents. They [know] the interior of my life with my psychologist. They steal my children’s DNA. This is not equitable what is happening here.”

It’s now known that he has been moved to the health ward of Belmarsh prison and this fact, along with his most recent court appearance has done nothing to dispel rumours that both his physical and mental health are under intense threat.

As Assange awaits his extradition hearing in Spring 2020, Amnesty International has once again asked the British authorities to acknowledge the real risk of human rights violations that this action would expose Assange to, stating:

“The UK must abide by its obligations under international human rights law that forbids the transfer of individuals to another country where they would face serious human rights violations.

“Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of these obligations.”

This most recent court management hearing has shown that the mental torture of Assange has already begun. The question is how many more indignities and infringements that WikiLeaks founder must suffer before the UK steps in and stops this McCarthyesque witch hunt in its tracks.

(Written by Rowan Martin & Michael O’Sullivan, contributions from Nick Davies and Vaughan Smith, edited by Michael O’Sullivan)

How you can get help defend the freedom of the press:

https://defend.wikileaks.org/

https://www.change.org/p/free-julian-assange-before-it-s-too-late-stop-usa-extradition

https://www.facebook.com/Free-Julian-Assange-112794885456369/

https://twitter.com/couragefound

https://twitter.com/DefendAssange

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

#Politics #World #Top Stories #Bywire News #Politics #Uk News & Politics #Crypto News #Editorial & Interviews