Charged with espionage, the creator of Wikileaks Julian Assange faces up to 175 years in prison. The hearing begins on Monday in London.
LONDON — Julian Assange now in Belmarsh, a maximum-security prison in southeast London is almost a regular at the British courts. Between February 2011 and May 2012, he challenged his extradition to Sweden three times and up to the Supreme Court in a rape and sexual assault case. Failing to succeed, the founder and thinking head of WikiLeaks had found refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London. He remained there, under the right guard and close surveillance for almost seven years, until a police raid in April 2019.
Since 2010 and the first accusations in Sweden, Julian Assange has hammered his first fear: to be extradited to the United States. The latter materialized a few hours after his arrest in April 2019. The United States indicted him, first of hacking, then of espionage, and asked the United Kingdom for his extradition. Weakened, the Australian will try, in a London court and from Monday, February 24, to defeat it. The American courts have retained Eighteen charges: in the event of extradition, Julian Assange risks 175 years behind bars.
Please read on the subject: In prison and weakened, Julian Assange prepares as best he can his extradition trial
Relations between WikiLeaks, a site specializing in the publication of secret documents, and the United States are appalling. Seeing Julian Assange as a simple pawn manipulated by Moscow during its interference operation in the 2016 American presidential election. The Evidence in the case has still not provided, but the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller again showed that the hacked emails published in 2016 by WikiLeaks came from hackers from the Russian intelligence services.
But the accusations that today hold Julian Assange’s threat of extradition have nothing to do with this Russian affair. They target what the United States considers the organization’s original sin, namely the publication, in 2010, over 100,000 confidential documents from the United States.
By associating at the time with some of the most reputable newspapers – the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, the slender Australian made breath a new wind on the media. He precipitated the newsrooms in the era of big data and large-scale leaks. His profile as a hacker campaigning for transparency baffles, but his quality of journalist does not suffer any discussion – even within the American government. If the latter denounces by all possible means the publication of its secrets and undertakes to put the organization under high surveillance, the Obama administration does not venture to prosecute WikiLeaks and its founder.
Jurists at the Department of Justice do not see how to get around the first amendment to the American Constitution, which is very protective of freedom of expression and journalists. The Trump administration does not share their prejudices and decides, on May 23, 2019, to mobilize 18 charges against Julian Assange, of which 17 falls under the scope of the Spy Act. This text, very harsh, had been dusted by the Obama administration to target the sources of the leaks, but never those who publish them.
Justice accuses Julian Assange of not having received the documents from his source, Chelsea Manning, then an analyst for the American army stationed in Iraq. The charging document notably mentions several exchanges between Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, in which the latter seems to guide her so that she extracts as much information as possible from secure American networks.
According to the prosecution, Julian Assange and his source knew very well that the information recovered was very sensitive and protected by secrecy. The American prosecutor even reproaches Mr. Assange for the publication of these documents, for having unveiled part of them – the diplomatic exchanges of the American State Department – without filtering on the Internet. Until then, these documents were published drop by drop after the removal of sensitive information, including the identity of individual informants.
In another point that the prosecution denounces: WikiLeaks “has put in danger to innocent people” who had sent information to the United States in hostile contexts. In support of his demonstration, the prosecutor cites the fact that the WikiLeaks documents found in possession of Osama bin Laden after his death. Finally, in addition to espionage, the American justice system has accused Julian Assange of hacking for having helped, without success, Chelsea Manning to obtain a password which should have enabled her to survey the computer networks of the city under a false identity. ‘army.
The trial promises to be extraordinary
But before bringing him to a Virginia court, American justice must obtain his extradition from the British authorities. The trial promises to be remarkable: in addition to the five days of hearing scheduled, the judge responsible for examining the file has scheduled three additional weeks in May. “It is extremely long for an extradition hearing. Most last one day and the most complex between 5 and 8 days,” notes Ben Keith, a British lawyer specializing in these procedures and vice-president of the Defense Extradition Lawyers Forum
The judge will not rule on the merits of the case but will have to verify that the American accusations are serious and well-founded. He must ensure that the facts alleged against Julian Assange are likely to be brought to court in the United Kingdom. “The crime of unauthorized disclosure exists in the UK, and I think it applies to everyone, including journalists,” said Paul Arnell, a law professor at the University of Aberdeen and a specialist in the law. ‘extradition.
The British prosecution, which represents the United States at the hearing, will face a fierce defense from the team of lawyers surrounding Julian Assange. The latter will no doubt try to prove that the American accusations are more political than legal in nature, one of the criteria likely, under British law, to prevent his extradition. Julian Assange’s counsel may also argue that too much time has passed since the alleged offenses. “It is unlikely that it will work because this duration is largely due to his actions,” namely his stay at the embassy, ??tempers Paul Arnell.
Julian Assange Right to a fair trial
Assange’s team could try to convince the judge that extraditing him would lead to a violation of his human rights, within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights, a text which binds the countries of the Council of Europe – bonds for which the recent exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, therefore, has no impact.
His lawyers will thus be able to invoke the right to a fair trial to denounce the espionage which Julian Assange was the subject of in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, compromising the secrecy of the exchanges with his lawyers, or the potential duration of his sentence in the States United (175 years). The Assange camp will be able to argue about its quality of journalist and its freedom of expression. “I don’t have all the details, but I don’t think it will work. I feel that his freedom of expression is better protected by American law than here in the United Kingdom, “predicts Ben Keith.
Assange’s lawyers will also be able to rely on his very precarious state of health. A British judge must keep in the United Kingdom any individual “whose mental or physical health is such that it would be unjust or tyrannical to extradite him.” For Paul Arnell, “this is perhaps his best argument.” Even if it doesn’t work, “it will force the court to ask tough questions in the United States about how it will be treated,” Ben Keith believes. “The UK could ask for guarantees on the treatment of Julian Assange,” confirms Paul Arnell. Guarantees could bind the American authorities within the meaning of international law.
If they fail to convince the judge, the lawyers could still try to circumscribe the American request: a basic rule, taken up by the British-American treaty on extradition, stipulates that an individual can only be judged for the crimes or offenses which motivated his extradition. “The court could say: we only accept extradition for accusations of hacking,” for which the Australian incurs “only” five years in prison, said Paul Arnell. And if the judge nevertheless decides on the extradition, the British Home Secretary will be responsible for endorsing the court decision. Even if this is unlikely in the case of Julian Assange, he can, in theory, oppose it.
This trial, at first instance, will be only the first step in a long process which could take several years. As did a few years ago against the Swedish arrest warrant, Julian Assange, in the event of defeat, is likely to appeal, and the case may go to the Supreme Court or even the European Court of Human Rights.