• UK High Court finds in favour of Julian Assange and upholds grounds for appeal
• US fails to fully reassure High Court of Assange’s right to a fair trial
After 4 years Julian Assange may finally get the right to a fair hearing.
Assange is seen as a fugitive by the US and if extradited would face up to 175 years of life imprisonment to run concurrently – practically seen as a death sentence.
This sentencing is based on 18 counts that the US has accused Assange of allegedly committing by publishing classified diplomatic and militarydocuments on “WikiLeaks” back in 2010, including breaching America’s Espionage Act, which if found guilty would set a free speech damaging precedent.
The charges mainly relate to the discovery of evidence proving genocide (or at the very least war crimes) was committed against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Source: Video showing the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people from New Baghdad and Reuters journalists.
The evidence was discovered by former US Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning, who risked her life by leaking information to Assange so that the horrific truth of the atrocities that took place in Afghanistan and Iraq could be revealed to the public domain.
Of the invasion conducted by the US on Iraq in 2003, the number of deaths recorded was anywhere from 200,000 to as many as a million Iraqis killed.
Of the invasion conducted by the US on Afghanistan in 2001, the number of deaths recorded by the UN was over 170000 Afghans killed on both sides.
Both invasions occurred during the Bush administration as part of the “Bush Doctrine” – the same doctrine which was used to install The Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas into power for Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine respectively.
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was his partner and supportthroughout both invasions. They have never been tried for war crimes or genocide. Assange, on the other hand, was made into an outlaw and a wanted fugitive for publishing the truth.
On March 26th 2024, it was decided by the High Court that there were only three reasonable grounds out of a possible nine to halt Julian Assange’s extradition:
“Ground iv) Extradition is incompatible with article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression)” – This meant Assange had the right to put the documents out into the public domain as a matter of public interest, especially where there is collusion to cover up a potential war crime or genocide.
“Ground v) If extradited, Mr Assange might be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his nationality (contrary to section 81(b) of the 2003 Act)” – As he was not American, it is believed that the US prosecutor would attempt to argue that Assange was not entitled to the protections as laid out in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
“Ground ix) Extradition is barred by inadequate specialty/death penalty protection” – Then Secretary of State Priti Patel confirmed that should Assange be charged with any allegation that carried the death penalty, then there would be nothing to stop the US government from carrying out his execution.
On Monday 20th May the High Court upheld the concerns raised by Julian Assange’s representatives on 2 out of the 3 counts as the US prosecutor failed to satisfy the High Court on their ability to give Assange a fair trial should he be extradited to the US.
In recent weeks the Australian government chose to intercede on Assange’s behalf and requested for President Biden to drop the charges against Assange – which he was said to be considering. If Biden were to agree to Australia’s request there would be repercussions.
Either he would have to support the release of Assange and admit the fault of the US on their invasions in the Middle East, causing more people to question the ongoing attacks on the Palestinians by Israel. Or he presses ahead with the greatest assault on the First Amendment ever recorded in history.
All media outlets including S2J News have a vested interest in this case owing to the justifiable need to report honest, open and independent journalism without fear of reprisal from foreign powers who should have no control or say in the running of another country and more importantly about what should and should not be said.
