Assange's Extradition Appeal Hearing is Quickly Approaching
Spread the word. Don't shoot the messenger. Free Julian Assange.
The appeal hearing regarding the United States government's effort to extradite Australian national, journalist, and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is set for October 27 and 28. At that time, the U.S. will begin its appeal of Judge Vanessa Baraitser's January 2021 ruling against Assange's extradition. This is a major moment and likely the U.S. government's last chance at criminalizing journalism and extraditing Assange to the U.S.
Baraitser's rejection cited the high probability of attempted suicide that would come with such a decision and was based on the application of section 91 of the UK's 2003 Extradition Act which states extradition is not allowed if the “physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.”
The campaign to extradite Assange was started under the Trump administration and fueled by Pompeo's obsession over revenge following the Vault 7 leaks. Still, the Biden administration is continuing the attempt through appeal of the January ruling.
Initially, two of the five grounds for appeal offered by the U.S. were denied. The three granted permission for argument were 1) that Judge Baraitser misapplied section 91 of the Extradition Act, 2) that the judge, upon citing section 91, should have notified the prosecution that it could have provided "assurances to the court" in advance, and 3) the approval of the U.S. package of assurances that claim Assange, if extradited, will not be placed in the high-security prison Supermax ADX Florence, and won’t be subjected to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs).
However, at a preliminary hearing in August, the other two grounds for appeal were heard and granted approval to be argued, expanding the scope of the rehashed argument. One of those two grounds challenged the admissibility of and the weight attributed to the testimony of psychiatrist Professor Michael Kopelman, while the other grounds questioned whether Baraitser made a mistake in her assessment of the suicide risk.
The matter of Kopelman's testimony did not circulate around the professor's bona fides or overall opinion, but rather around the misleading omission of a "material issue."
Kopelman evaluated Assange in prison and concluded that he suffers from clinical depression and is on the Autism spectrum. The professor submitted two reports to Baraitser in December 2019 and August 2020 prior to testifying in September 2020.
Regarding the first of his reports, the U.S. points to Kopelman's failure to disclose the relationship between Assange and his fiancée Stella Moris. By the time of the second report, the information about Assange and Moris, as well as their two children, was public knowledge, prompting questions in September 2020. Kopelman testified that his intention was to protect the family's privacy— an explanation Baraitser ultimately sided with in her ruling this past January, writing that the "decision to conceal their relationship was misleading and inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response to Ms. Morris’s predicament."
The U.S. prosecution is claiming that Kopelman's testimony should be deemed inadmissible or, at least, be given "no, or far less, weight" and, considering the testimony played a heavy role in the January decision, that Assange should be extradited to Virginia where he would stand trial and serve a possible sentence of 175 years in miserable, isolated conditions that would almost certainly kill him.
Going into this upcoming appeal hearing, the U.S. is looking to reverse both Judge Baraitser's application of section 91 and her assessment of Assange's high risk of suicide based on Kopelman's expertise by rerunning the same arguments that have already been settled.
The Biden administration is bending over backwards to punish this journalist even as outrageous reports came out last month in Yahoo! News confirming the CIA's serious intention to kidnap or assassinate Assange, reports that caused an outcry from the ACLU, The Freedom of the Press Foundation, and other organizations. Prior to that, in June, the key witness in the U.S. case against Assange admitted to lying on behalf of the FBI about being taught and directed to hack in exchange for granted protection and possible immunity for crimes including fraud and child molestation.
Of course, even as Assange suffers and the key witness in his case is arrested, even as Snowden remains cornered in Moscow, as Daniel Hale, the man who blew the whistle on Obama's drone program, sits imprisoned, the U.S. establishment is wheeling out its own phony whistleblowers that, unlike the three aforementioned, aid in manufacturing revelations of "problems" that appear to require stricter and further unbound government action.
Unlike Assange, Snowden, Hale, or any of the others that are attacked for shining a vital light on the covert actions of the government in order to demand accountability, someone like Frances Haugen facilitates continued and precipitously more despotic government behavior.
A whistleblower that is demonized and condemned for revealing truth by the pillars of power is one that threatens the impunity of the establishment to abuse and expand its power. Thus a "whistleblower" that is celebrated by the establishment is nothing but a tool used to maintain and advance power.
As Joe Lauria asked in his piece for Consortium News: Is there anyone in the Department of Justice that will pressure Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the prosecution of Assange?
Daniel Foote, the U.S. special envoy to Haiti, Lauria points out, resigned last month, protesting the Biden administration's decision to send thousands of Haitian migrants back to their country amid the aftermath of a large magnitude 7.2 earthquake that struck the nation in August and created a humanitarian crisis. In his letter of resignation, Foote condemned the actions as well as the history of U.S. interference and meddling in Haitian government.
In that light, under the circumstances of cruel and hypocritical misuse of power, there is potential for someone in the DOJ to courageously stand up against the prosecution of Assange.
With outcries from the likes of the ACLU, the pressure on the White House to drop the extradition effort is on the rise, but the prosecution is showing no signs of being halted, making the need for a show of courage within the administration clear.
The White House, itself, has deflected to the DOJ on the matter, while Merrick Garland and company have remained mostly silent on Assange. So if anything is to be done, someone within the DOJ needs to take a stand.
Who might that be? Lauria suggests our best hope is U.S. Associate Attorney Vanita Gupta, third in the DOJ's chain of command.
Lauria and others note that Gupta not only has the character to stand up for Assange, but also the track record. Between 2007 and 2014, Gupta worked for the ACLU— the same organization playing a considerable part in leading the outside pressure campaign against Assange's prosecution— and previously worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. While with the NAACP, Gupta played a major role in the 1999-2003 case regarding the black population of Tulia, TX who were being arrested on fabricated sting operations carried out by corrupt law enforcement. She worked to put together a group of pro bono lawyers that represented the victims and, ultimately, brought about the freedom of the 46 individuals falsely convicted and imprisoned.
Comedian and activist Randy Credico, who was in Tulia at the time, noted the positive exposure Gupta received from the press which led to the upward trajectory of her career. "I hope she does the right thing," Credico told Consortium News regarding Assange. "The irony is here’s a woman who’s where she is because of the press and now she’s allowing the Press to be destroyed."
If Gupta were to make this stand in advocacy for Assange and journalism, the White House would still need to be convinced. Biden was VP under Obama when that administration declined to indict Assange based on "The New York Times problem" (i.e. the concept that a prosecution of Assange directly constitutes prosecution of The Times and any journalistic outlet), but Biden, at the time, also referred to Assange as a "high-tech terrorist" rather than likening him to a Daniel Ellsberg. So even if Gupta stands up for the freedom of the press, it's unclear whether or not Biden would ascent to dropping the prosecution.
Much, at this point, remains to be seen.
Since the final results surrounding the Assange case implicates all people who value transparency and freedom, the October 27-28 appeal hearing is a huge moment that requires attention and pressure from all possible angles.
This prosecution of journalism won't be covered in the corporate press so public awareness of this story is critical. Spread the word. Don't shoot the messenger. Free Julian Assange.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!
Free Assange!