Skip to main content

How Julian Assange beat extradition

Julian Assange’s defeat of extradition to the United States was a huge victory — one that couldn’t have been achieved without a public pressure campaign. That same public pressure will now be needed to free Assange from prison.
by John Rees 

As I watched Judge Vanessa Baraitser give her verdict in the Assange extradition case at the Old Bailey yesterday, a deep depression settled over me. I’ve heard every minute of the Assange case from the moment it started in Belmarsh in February last year, through three weeks in September at the Old Bailey, to this forty-five-minute summary of the verdict.

For forty minutes of that three-quarters of an hour the judge rejected every defense argument against extradition. Journalists are allowed to tweet court proceedings as they happen, thanks to a ruling in an earlier Assange hearing.

I watched Assange come into the court and take his seat. At a little after quarter past ten, the judge began by rejecting Assange’s political offenses defense because the extradition treaty wasn’t part of UK law. She went on to say that Assange helped Chelsea Manning to download materials — a line which went along with the prosecutors’ case, including its most dubious claims. Then she said there was no public interest defense.

Fifteen minutes into the judgement, the judge still seemed to be concurring with the arguments made by the US state. She refused to accept that Assange was being extradited for his political views, excused CIA spying on Assange, including in the embassy, and defended Ecuador’s withdrawal of asylum. Then Judge Baraitser made the most remarkable statement of all: “This court trusts a US court will uphold Assange’s civil liberties.

Few who heard this lengthy defense of the US empire’s pursuit of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks could have been in much doubt that an extradition order was coming. It seemed a clear-cut verdict, based on almost total credit being given to the prosecution for their case — including considerable evidence which Assange’s team hadn’t had the opportunity to challenge. But then something extraordinary happened.

At almost 11 AM, the tone changed. The judge accepted that Assange suffered from depression and that he would likely be held in solitary confinement in the United States, worsening the condition. Then she recognized the threat of suicide this situation posed. On these grounds, the extradition was refused.

In the final few moments of the verdict, the judge ruled that conditions in the United States’s super-max prisons are simply too brutal for Julian Assange to be incarcerated without serious risk that he would take his own life. The prisons are, she accepted, “oppressive.”

So, if the US government wishes to know why it lost this extradition hearing, and lost it in the court of a judge that is fundamentally in agreement with their case in every particular, then it boils down to this: the US prison system is too inhumane, to damaging to those in its care, for a human being to avoid thoughts of self harm or even suicide.

If the US lawyers insist on going ahead with appealing to a higher court to try and enforce their extradition request it will not be Julian Assange who is on trial. It will be the US prison system. We have every reason to campaign to ensure that they lose this battle for a second time.

The verdict is a triumph for Assange, his family, his lawyers, and his supporters. But it leaves many questions unanswered. Most immediate of those is the question of bail: Assange should already be walking the streets as a free man. He faces no charges and his extradition has been refused by the only court it is before.

But the judge sent him back to the hell of Belmarsh (no better than a US super-max), pending yet another hearing on Wednesday. There is no reason, beyond the convenience of the US prosecutors, that he should remain in jail. He should be freed immediately.

We also have to return to the deeply problematic points in the judgement, which undermine so much of what was being fought for in this case — from political freedom to freedom of the press and the rights of whistleblowers.

The judge actually went beyond the claims of the US prosecutors when she said that the fact that the extradition treaty was not fully written into UK law means that there is, intentionally, no defense for political dissidents in the UK’s extradition arrangements. This cannot be allowed to stand, and it is not how MPs, both Labour and Tory, remember the assurances given by the Blair government when the current treaty was adopted.

Nor should we accept for a second the judge’s claims that there is no public interest defense for whistleblowers and journalists, or her claim that those being persecuted for their political opinions should not enjoy the protection of the law. All these glaring contradictions with accepted norms are a product of the judge’s decision to reject extradition on narrow grounds while accepting the overwhelming majority of the prosecution case.

No doubt this approach appeals to the political establishment. Ruling against Assange on questions of journalistic freedom but banishing the political embarrassment of his case on the basis that he is too weak to endure the US prison system is an expedient way out of the mess that they have created.

It’s exactly the kind of political fix that has kept the old and cunning English establishment in power for centuries. Other examples might be the transportation of the Tolpuddle martyrs, and their return before the full span of punishment was complete under public pressure, or the sudden intervention of the little known “official solicitor” which freed the Pentonville dockers in 1972 — again under the threat of mass campaigning and strike action.

And therein lies the lesson. Without constant public campaigning the pressure simply would not have existed to produce a verdict such as this. The way to remedy its partial and inadequate nature is more of the same.



Popular posts from this blog

Vijay Prashad on BRICS & Why Global South Cooperation Is Key to Dismantling Unjust World Order

Democracy Now!   As a two-day BRICS summit gets underway in South Africa, we speak with author and analyst Vijay Prashad about whether the bloc — which comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — can meaningfully challenge U.S. and Western domination in world affairs by building an alternative forum for countries of the Global South. BRICS countries represent 40% of the world's population and a quarter of the world's economy, and the group is now considering a possible expansion to more than 20 other countries. " BRICS is an instrument to push forward their political views, which they feel are not taken seriously, " says Prashad, director of the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. Prashad explains the history of BRICS and its New Development Bank and responds to criticism that BRICS falsely portrays itself as an anti-imperialist project. The BRICS countries " are not a socialist bloc, " says Prashad, but they " don't want to


The Hill   Editor for The Grayzone Max Blumenthal previews the upcoming summit of "BRICS" nations. 

Libya's destroyers appeal for aid

The Grayzone   The Grayzone 's Max Blumenthal and Wyatt Reed discuss the hypocrisy and cynicism of Obama and his former aides who presided over NATO's destruction of the Libyan state as they now appeal for humanitarian relief following deadly floods in the city of Derna. 

USA & NATO responsible for Ukraine war, German & French public say in poll

Geopolitical Economy Report   Most people in Germany and France blame the United States and NATO for the war in Ukraine, according to a poll conducted not by a pro-Russian group but rather by anti-Putin activists. 

Western sanctions failing: EU imports more Russian gas, China beats US tech war

Geopolitical Economy Report  Western sanctions are backfiring: The EU is now importing Russian liquified natural gas at record levels, and China has made high-tech breakthroughs despite US export restrictions. Ben Norton discusses how this is strengthening their economic sovereignty while blowing back on Europe.

EU increases Russian purchases despite sanctions

The Dive with Jackson Hinkle    

Intel-linked UK official pushing censorship of Russell Brand

The author of letters to social media companies demanding the financial punishment of Russell Brand is a British lawmaker implicated in London’s war on Covid-19 and Ukraine dissenters. Her husband was a commander in the Army’s psy-ops division. by Kit Klarenberg   Part 1   Allegations of sexual impropriety and abuse by comedian and podcaster Russell Brand by the British media prompted YouTube to demonetize the star’s popular channel on September 20. The Grayzone can now reveal that YouTube’s financial censorship of Brand is the result of an effort waged by a former British government minister who was responsible for London’s crackdown on dissent during the Covid-19 pandemic. Her husband has also participated in that campaign of state repression as deputy commander of 77th Brigade, the British Army’s psychological warfare division. YouTube justified its demonetization of Brand on the grounds that he violated its “ creator responsibility policy. ” This marks the first time a content cre

Julian Assange’s father tells Glenn Greenwald how he may finally go free

Glenn Greenwald    

Niger raises Uranium price from €0.80/kg to €200/kg!

The New Africa Channel   Niger Raises Uranium Price  From €0.80/kg to €200/kg - In a groundbreaking development that signals a seismic shift in the global resource market, Niger, a prominent player in the uranium industry, has reportedly taken a bold step towards securing fair compensation for its invaluable natural resource, uranium. Multiple reports suggest that Niger has substantially increased the price of its uranium, skyrocketing it from a mere €0.80 per kilogram to €200 per kilogram.    This remarkable decision underscores a burgeoning determination among African nations to break free from historical imbalances and demand equitable remuneration for their vital contributions to the global economy.  According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), Niger is the world's seventh-largest uranium producer. The radioactive metal is the most widely used fuel for nuclear energy. It is also utilised in cancer treatment, naval propulsion, and nuclear weapons.   Uranium prices increased

Julian Assange and the end of American Democracy

The Real News Network   The US government has hounded Julian Assange since WikiLeaks first revealed the extent of US war crimes in 2010. In the process of persecuting Assange, the federal government has used every tool at its disposal and even pushed beyond the boundaries that supposedly restrict state power in defense of civil liberties. One of the most insidious tactics is the use of the Espionage Act, which had not been used for against whistleblowers and journalists for almost a century before Assange's case.    Prison is always a political tool, and in the case of whistleblowers like Julian Assange, the use of incarceration to suppress, discourage, and silence dissent is self-evident. Since being imprisoned, Assange has married and even started a family—but has been kept apart from his wife and children.   Lawyer and human rights defender Stella Assange, spouse of Julian Assange, joins Chris Hedges for a look at the vast and vicious campaign by the US to silence Julian Assange