Lawyers for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange are resisting his extradition to the United States in the crucial appeal process.
Stella Assange, the wife of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, outside the London courthouse on Tuesday. Photo: Toby Melville/Reuters
LONDON taz | “Julian Assange would be very moved for all of you to come. Whatever happens, please keep it up,” Stella Assange, the wife of Julian Assange, held in Britain's maximum security Belmarsh prison, told those gathered at London's High Court on Tuesday morning.
The two-day final hearing, which began on Tuesday, could result in Assange's immediate expulsion and transfer to the United States if the defense arguments are rejected. Only an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with an immediate precautionary measure could prevent this. If the defense is proven right, the case will be heard again.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange obtained more than 700,000 secret US files through military IT specialist Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning) and published them in 2010. Assange will now be extradited under an expulsion agreement between the US and the United Kingdom. He faces criminal proceedings in the United States on 18 criminal charges, including espionage charges and a possible prison sentence of up to 175 years.
Assange's defense argued on Tuesday that in an appeal in 2021, the then judge would have ignored important issues and therefore erred in her verdict. She had ruled that Assange was at risk of suicide due to his mental state in US ADX prisons and therefore should not be deported. But after subsequent diplomatic assurances from the US, the expulsion was approved by a higher authority.
Defense cites human rights convention
Assange's defense stated on Tuesday that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution of journalistic publications in the United States and that Assange could not foresee criminal consequences for his publications.
Therefore, a deportation would primarily violate articles 5 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There were cases against people who had taken the oath. But even then, it is increasingly important to consider whether the information revealed was in the public interest and whether there were other ways to raise the alarm within an organisation. But that was just Manning's problem.
According to the defense, Assange had participated in legally permitted compilation of journalistic information in the interest of maintaining democracy. This is nothing unusual in the case of state security information. The genuine and truthful information published by Assange not only led to legal proceedings in Pakistan, before the International Criminal Court and the ECHR, but also changed the methods used in wars and even contributed to their end.
According to Assange's lawyers, it has not been proven that the people named in the posts suffered harm as a result and that any potential harm is outweighed by the public interest.
Lawyers: The United States acts for political reasons
Expelling Assange would also violate the United States' clearly political motives for revenge against him. The British expulsion agreement with the United States prohibits expulsions that have political motives behind them.
Information that is in yahoo news Published reports showed that there were plans to kidnap and kill Assange, so Wikileaks was classified as a non-state enemy intelligence service.
There is also a risk that more accusations will be made against Assange in the United States, which could lead to the death penalty, especially if Donald Trump becomes US president again. It is also unclear whether Assange, as a foreigner whose publications took place abroad, even has First Amendment protection.
U.S. lawyers are scheduled to speak Wednesday. Assange himself was not present in court on Tuesday because his health was not good, his lawyers said. It was initially unclear when a decision would be made. It is not expected to be announced immediately after the second day of hearings.