British justice rejected the extradition request …

From London

The year 2021 has started with good news for Julian Assange, press freedom and the fight against the use of justice to silence critical voices. Against what many expected and calculated, British judge Vanessa Baraitser has rejected the request for the extradition of the founder of WikiLeaks to the United States in the London Magistrates’ Court. The decision, which the United States will appeal, has its flaws.

The judge based the rejection on the humanitarian side. “In a situation of total isolation, the procedure described by the United States would not prevent the suicide of Julian Assange and, therefore, I consider that extradition would be oppressive because of the mental damage it would cause ”, he said.. The described procedure is the conditions of detention Assange would undergo in the event of extradition to the United States.

But Baraister rejected the rest of the arguments presented by the defense the allegation that the charges were “politically motivated” to the danger to press freedom and the lack of guarantees of a fair trial in the United States.

This duality of the judgment will be the ground on which the case will evolve before the High Court of Justice.. Central to Baraister’s decision is Article 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, which states that extradition will be refused in the event that “the physical or mental state is affected such that the extradition is unjust or oppressive ”.

The big question is whether the prosecution on behalf of the United States will be able to convince the judges that the conditions of detention in that country will not be a risk to Assange’s integrity. For that, he would have to present a change or new evidence on the “procedures described” by the prosecution, which is quite unusual in these cases, but not impossible. Another conundrum is whether the judges will agree to reconsider the arguments about press freedom and trial fairness or whether these were erased from the legal argument by Baraitser., something that would reduce the room for maneuver of the defense.

Wednesday everyone will meet again because the judge must decide whether or not to grant Assange parole. Assange’s attorney, Edward Fitzgerald, has announced that he will seek the measure due to the negative impact it would have on Assange to continue in Belmarsh High Security Prison, due to the clinical depression he is suffering from. . The defense will offer a “package of control measures” such as home surveillance and regular appearance at a police station to ensure there is no risk of absconding.

On Twitter, a debate was opened between lawyers who for the most part agreed that it will be difficult for the United States to find legal loopholes allowing to question the decision of first instance. But an influential columnist, Owen Jones, noted in the The Guardian that although the rationale for the decision was correct, the reason given was not. “For a British court to declare that the American prison system is so barbaric that it cannot guarantee the safety of a prisoner, says it all. But it’s more than Assange – it’s about journalism, freedom of the press and the ability to speak out against atrocities committed by a superpower, ”Jones writes.

Indeed, without Assange (and Chelsea Manning who handed him the classified documents) we wouldn’t know about the 2007 video which showed American soldiers laughing after killing 12 innocent people, including two Iraqi journalists working for Reuters. It is also unclear how hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan were killed by US forces.

In 2010, Assange published more than 700,000 documents detailing the atrocities committed by US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. and the cables of American diplomacy with much of the planet. The response of the Barack Obama administration was to launch Assange’s extradition and prosecution campaign. Then-Vice President Joe Biden openly said he was determined to wage a war against Assange, whom he called a “high-tech terrorist.”

It doesn’t matter whether they are Democrats or Republicans: whatever their color of government, they will not leave center stage. And this place involves being the puppeteer of the news. An unforgettable lesson from Vietnam was the centrality of information. Public opinion began to overwhelmingly oppose the intervention when it saw images on its screens of Vietnamese children running naked and with their clothes on fire or learned of the MyLai massacre scandal. In this sense, the decision is insufficient.

For those close to Assange and supporters, it was also a moment of celebration in a fight that has been going on for over a decade and is not over. Assange’s current partner, South African lawyer Stella Morris, the mother of his two children, broke down in tears in court. “This is a first step in obtaining justice. The United States wants to make Julian disappear in the darkest hole of their prison system, ”Morris said. Amnesty International has criticized the UK government for supporting the process. “We are happy that Julian Assange is not sent to the United States, but that does not exempt the United Kingdom from having engaged in this political fight at the request of the United States”

But perhaps the most significant reaction to this decision was that of the US Department of Justice. “While we are extremely disappointed with the decision of this tribunal, we are happy to hear that the United States has triumphed in all legal arguments. In particular, the court rejected Assange’s arguments regarding alleged political motivation, a possible unfair and partial trial, or a limit on free speech. We will continue to seek Assange’s extradition ”