The Official Australian Website in Support of Julian Assange
On the 22 August 2023, sent the following communique to Mr Hulls and co-signatories
Read appeal on this site Former Labor Attorneys-General and Ministers for Justice appeal to Prime Minister Albanese
On 20th August 2024, a posting on Twitter reference German news article regarding a rejected extradition to the UK due ‘ the terrible conditions in UK prisons, including chronic overcrowding, staff shortages, violence, the small size of Victorian cells, and a lack of fresh air’
Editor’s Note: This article is include and these are the very inhumane conditions that Assange suffers.
A summary of the court decision from Lawyers Office Hegarhaus
We refer to LTO’s report of August 14, 2023 on proceedings before the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, which, by decision of March 10, 2023 (Az. 301 OAus 1/23), ordered the extradition of a persecuted person to the United Kingdom due to the prison conditions there than currently deemed inadmissible:
âNo extradition because of inhumane circumstances in the prisons of the target country â this is not uncommon for courts to decide. A decision by the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court shows that this can also apply to Great Britain.
So Christian Rath in LTO.
The fact that extradition fails because the prison conditions in the destination country are inhumane is nothing new. But normally one thinks here of countries in distant parts of the world or of EU countries such as Bulgaria and Romania.
At the beginning of the year, however, the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court (OLG) classified the extradition of an Albanian to Great Britain as “currently inadmissible” – because of the prison conditions there (decision of March 10, 2023, file no.: 301 OAus 1/23). Jan-Carl Janssen , the Freiburg lawyer who fought for the decision, assumes that it is the first such decision in Germany.
(…)”
The full text of the article is available here .
For English please also check EUCRIM, 7 August 2023 by Thomas Wahl: ” German Court Denies Extradition to UK Because of Bad Detentions “:
“On 10 March 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe (Germany) declared extradition of a person from Germany to the UK as “currently inadmissible” due to the lack of guarantees for the person’s protection of fundamental rights. The decision in an unofficial English translation can be found here.
The requested person’s defense council Dr. Jan-Carl Janssen put forward objections against extradition with regard to the prison conditions in the UK and a possible violation of Art. 3 ECHR. By also referring to a 2021 CPT report, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe posed several specific questions to the UK authorities with regard to prison conditions to be expected of the prosecuted person after his extradition in the UK.â
If you have any questions, the specialist lawyers for criminal law Dr. Jan-Carl Janssen , Jan-Georg Wennekers and Jens Janssen .
On the 14th August 2023, Matt Knott reported in the Sydney Morning Herald that a group of former Labor attorneys-general is calling on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to intensify his efforts to convince the United States to end its pursuit of Julian Assange
On the 17th August 2023, the Assange Campaign emailed some 80,000 active supporters advising of the letter and the news article.
The signatories are
Rob Hulls
Peter Duncan
Lara Giddings
Chris Sumner
Judy Jackson
Rod Welford
Michael Duffy
Bernard Collaery
Read Article in the Sydney Morning Herald
Read Prime Minister Albanese’s response from the 22nd August 2023
On 9th August 2023, Tess Ikonomou writes for Australian Associated Press
Kevin Rudd says the United States’ pursuit of Julian Assange has “gone on for too long” and he will continue to express Australia’s concerns.
During a visit to Australia as part of high level talks, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Mr Assange was accused of “very serious criminal conduct” .
Asked how he was continuing to press Australia’s position to the US as ambassador, Mr Rudd said his responsibility to engage on behalf of all Australians included Mr Assange.
“As for Secretary Blinken’s statements recently, that’s to be anticipated from the administration, reflecting their concerns about the history of the case,” he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.
“We in Australia have our own concerns that we continue to reflect and my job as Australia’s leading diplomat in the US is to engage effectively, which usually means silently with the US administration, in order to maximise our prospects.”
“The prime minister has already made clear that this has gone on for too long. I agree with him.”
Read article in The Canberra Times and many other regional papers
On the 25th November 2019, Kevin Rudd sent this letter was sent to Peter Pyke of Bring Julian Assange Home Queensland.
Editors Note: This letter has been included to show the now Australian Ambassador to the US as a long term supporter of Julian Assange
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your invitation to attend the Bring Julian Assange Home Queensland Network event on Wednesday night in Brisbane. I am unfortunately unable to attend as I will be working overseas.
While I hold serious reservations about Mr Assangeâs character and his conduct, I nonetheless share some of the concerns that have been raised about his potential extradition to face an effective life sentence, or worse, in the United States.
Judging from the indictment published in May, US prosecutors appear to have levelled no specific allegation that anyone came to serious harm as a consequence of these leaks. If their case is essentially that Mr Assange broke the law by obtaining and disclosing secret information, then I struggle to see what separates him from any journalist who solicits, obtains and publishes such information. This includes the editors of the many American media outlets that reported the material that Mr Assange provided them.
In other words, why should Mr Assange be tried, convicted and incarcerated while those who publicly released the information are afforded protection under provisions of the US constitution concerning press freedom?
Ultimate responsibility for keeping sensitive information secure rests with governments. As a former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, I am deeply opposed to the leaking of classified diplomatic or intelligence communications. They are classified for a purpose, namely to maintain our national security and that of our allies.
Nonetheless, the United States government demonstrably failed to effectively secure the classified documents relevant to this case. The result was the mass leaking of sensitive diplomatic cables, including some that caused me some political discomfort at the time. However, an effective life sentence is an unacceptable and disproportionate price to pay. I would therefore oppose his extradition.
There is also another important dimension to all this. In the very rare circumstances that the internal complaint systems within governments are corrupted, it is important that genuine whistle-blowers have the last resort of going to the media. While I do not believe that was the case with Mr Assangeâs actions, I am nonetheless deeply mindful of the wider principle at stake.
Yours sincerely,
Hon Kevin Rudd AC
Read original posting in Kevin Rudd’s Blog
Also of interest is Kevin Rudd’s tweet of June 2022
On the 3rd August 2023, Australian Senator Nick McKim sent an email to supporters of Julian Assange.
Editors Note: His speech (video below) in Australian Senate on the 2nd August is very powerful and moving.
 Dear Supporter of Julian Assange, Thanks again for your ongoing advocacy to have Julian Assange freed! As you probably know, last week the US made it abundantly clear that they wonât be budging when it comes to Julian Assange. Quiet diplomacy by Mr Albanese and Senator Wong has clearly failed, and it is time for the Prime Minister to make it clear to Mr Biden that freedom for Julian Assange is non-negotiable. After all, we are spending $370 billion on the AUKUS deal. We are hosting their armed forces, with US bases on our soil. We are going to host their nuclear submarines, and embed their spies into our military apparatus. Whenever they have said âjumpâ our only question has been, âhow high would you like us to jump?â Australia needs to make it clear to the US that this relationship is a two-way street, and yesterday in the Senate the Greens called on the Prime Minister to stand up for his citizens. That is the very least that any Australian would expect their Prime Minister to do. You can watch my speech in the Senate |
| The Greens have once again called on the Albanese government to insist that the US cease its attack on journalism, cease its attack on the truth, and free Julian. They need to bring him home to his family and his country, where he belongs. Thanks again for ongoing advocacy, and for fighting for truth, freedom and justice for Julian. Warm regards Nick Nick McKim Greens Senator for Tasmania |
On the 30th April 2023, the editors collated a list of frequent misrepresentations by the Australian Government as reported through feedback from our active supporter base with 50,000 registrations
Rebuttal: While we appreciate the sentiment, we urge the Australian Government to provide more specific details on what they mean by “bringing the case to a close”. A clear timeline or plan of action would demonstrate a stronger commitment to advocating for Mr Assange’s rights and wellbeing. This case needs an urgent and robust strategy to ensure the best outcome in the quickest of timelines. It can not be an open ended statement.
Rebuttal: In March 2023 former senator Mr Rex Patrick received evidence from a freedom of information request that revealed that the Australian Government has not sent any formal letters to the UK or US governments regarding Mr Assange’s case. Not one letter has been sent from Anthony Albanese or Penny Wong in regard to Julian Assange. This raises fundamental questions about the level of commitment, integrity and action taken by the Australian Government in advocating for their citizen’s legal rights and wellbeing. We urge the Australian Government to take more concrete, transparent steps in supporting Mr Assange’s case.
Rebuttal: It is important for any government to engage in diplomacy and seek to resolve issues through peaceful means. However, in the case of Julian Assange, quiet diplomacy has not been effective in securing his release or ensuring his legal rights are protected. In fact, many believe that a more public and assertive approach is necessary to address the violations of Mr. Assange’s human rights and to bring attention to the implications of his case for press freedom and the right to information.
Furthermore, the use of “quiet diplomacy” can often result in a lack of transparency and accountability, allowing governments to act with impunity and without proper scrutiny. It is important for the Australian Government to demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability in its approach to Mr. Assange’s case, and to ensure that it is advocating for the legal rights and wellbeing of its citizen in a manner that is consistent with democratic principles and international law.
Rebuttal: It is important to note that Mr Assange’s has never rejected, refused or rescinded consular support. It is true however that in 2019 Mr Assange withdrew his consent for the Australian Government to have access to his medical records. It was not Assange that rejected consular support but the Australia Government withdrew it and then blamed Mr Assange. We urge the Australian Government to take a more proactive and committed approach in advocating for Mr Assange’s case.
While we acknowledge the importance of respecting the sovereignty of other nations, we urge the Australian Government to take a more active role in advocating for Mr Assange’s legal rights and wellbeing, as they have done in the past for other Australians in trouble abroad. The Australian government has through diplomatic intervention won the release of six Australian citizens from foreign jails since 2007: David Hicks (U.S./Guantanamo), Melinda Taylor (Libya), James Ricketson (Cambodia), Sean Turnell (Myanmar), Kylie Moore-Gilbert (Iran), and Peter Greste (Egypt). In the case of Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian academic who was imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage, the Australian Government intervened diplomatically and provided legal support for her case. Similarly, in the case of David Hicks, an Australian citizen who was detained at Guantanamo Bay, the Australian Government provided legal assistance and advocated for his repatriation. He was never put on trial by the U.S. after years in Guantanamo. Yet Australia intervened to free him while that legal process played out. Hicks was never put on trial after years spent in Guantanamo. The legal process in Turnellâs case was still ongoing as, like Assange, he had only been charged, but not convicted.
We believe that the Australian Government should take a similar approach in the case of Mr Assange, which can include diplomatic efforts, public statements, and legal interventions in support of his case.
Rebuttal: While it is true that the US has a separation of powers, it is important to note that the US government holds significant influence and power in the outcome of Mr Assange’s case. We urge the US government to ensure that Mr Assange receives a fair and just legal process, in accordance with international law and human rights standards. The Australian Government must also continue to advocate for their citizen’s legal rights and wellbeing in the face of potential human rights violations.
One example of a president using their influence to drop alleged charges is the case of President Obama and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In 2013, Snowden was charged with multiple violations of the Espionage Act after he leaked classified information about the US government’s surveillance activities. However, in 2016, President Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst who had also leaked classified information and commuted her sentence. This led some to speculate that President Obama may have been considering a similar pardon or commutation for Snowden.
Another example is the case of President Trump and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 election, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to drop the charges against him in 2020. This move was criticised by some as a politically motivated decision influenced by President Trump.
While these examples may not be directly applicable to the case of Mr Assange, they demonstrate the potential for presidential influence in the legal process. It is important for the US government to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially, regardless of any political considerations.
On the 29th December 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order defining conditions on classifying information
This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation’s progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation’s security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
…
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
…
Editors Note: Being Australian we are unsure of the gravity of breaching a US President’s Executive Order. If say there were a widespread and significant breaches of an Australian Minister’s directives then we would expect at least calls for a Royal Commission. However as the US President is Commander in Chief of the US military then could one expect widespread and significant breaches to be considered acts of mutiny? We draw attention to the Generals in ability to provide the Collateral Murder videos over multiple requests by Reuters. Seemingly their bureaucratic incompetence was a ploy to ‘prevent embarrassment’
Refer Archives Document
The Guardian – All Lies
On the 11th April 2023 the following appeal was dispatched to the US Department of Justice with the signatures of 48 members of Australia’s 47th Parliament
The Honourable Merrick B. Garland
Attorney General of the United States of America
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
WASHINGTON DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General
We write to you as Australian parliamentarians from the Government, Opposition and crossbench to call on you to end the extradition proceedings against Australian citizen, Mr Julian Assange. Mr Assange is the Australian journalist and publisher, currently detained in His Majestyâs Prison Belmarsh in London awaiting a decision on extradition to the United States of America.
As you would be aware, the previous US Administration brought charges against Mr Assange for seventeen counts relating to allegedly obtaining and disclosing information under the Espionage Act of 1917, and one count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1968. The charges pertain to Mr Assangeâs actions, as a journalist and publisher for WikiLeaks, in publishing information with evidence of war crimes, corruption and human rights abuses.
If the extradition request is approved, Australians will witness the deportation of one of our citizens from one AUKUS partner to another â our closest strategic ally â with Mr Assange facing the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison. This would set a dangerous precedent for all global citizens, journalists, publishers, media organizations and the freedom of the press. It would also be needlessly damaging for the US as a world leader on freedom of expression and the rule of law.
International experts oppose the continued persecution of Mr Assange, including the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, and the Council of Europeâs Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja MijatoviÄ, as well as human rights organisations, various heads of state and parliamentarians from around the world.
Attorney General, Australian public opinion on this matter is clear. Indeed polling shows that 88 per cent of Australians either support, or are unopposed, to calls for Mr Assange to be brought back to Australia. Mr Assange has been effectively incarcerated for well over a decade in one form or another, yet the person who leaked classified information had their sentence commuted and has been able to participate in American society since 2017. A clear majority of Australians consider that this matter has gone on for far too long and must be brought to a close. We implore you to drop the extradition proceedings and allow Mr Assange to return home.
Yours sincerely
Australian Parliamentarians
Signatories overleaf
On the 24th March 2023, the members of the Third World Forum on Human Rights submitted this appeal on behalf of Julian Assange to the US Department of Justice
We, the undersigned participants of the III World Forum on Human Rights, express our concern about the extradition requested by the United States of America in relation to the journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, currently on remand in subhuman conditions in the high security prison of Belmarsh, in the United Kingdom.
Extraditing Julian Assange would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom and the right to access information globally. Not only would it be a life sentence against this journalist, Julian Assange, but it would act as a veiled threat to all journalists around the world who aim to do their job in an honest manner.
Mr. Assange is charged under the Espionage Act 1917, a law that has never been used against a journalist for publishing accurate information concerning egregious international crimes. The UK-US Extradition Treaty itself, which forms the basis for this extradition request, specifically prohibits extradition for political offences. The same is true of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, the Interpol Constitution and other bilateral treaties ratified by the United States of America. The prohibition on extradition for political offences is also enshrined in the Inter-American Human Rights System.
Mr. Assange engaged in normal practices of investigative journalism, such as receiving information from sources and then publishing that accurate information which was in the public interest. Charges under the Espionage Act would criminalise these routine journalistic practices, thus being a direct threat to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
It was precisely this irreconcilable conflict between these charges and the First Amendment that led former President Barack Obamaâs Administration to rightly deny an indictment against Mr. Assange because it would criminalise the practice of journalism at its core.
Mr. Assange was arrested on 11 April 2019 and is now one of the longest detainees on remand in the United Kingdom.
We the undersigned demand a renewed confidence on the international rule of law and that of the United States, by the latter withdrawing the charges against Mr. Assange and ending the ongoing extradition before the UK courts.
By this Statement we express our full agreement with the view of the Council of Europe, which considers the treatment of Mr. Assange to be among “the most serious threats to press freedom”.
With that in mind, we add our voices to a growing public outcry in civil society, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, to that of United Nations agencies, the world’s leading media, press freedom associations, medical organisations, as well as most of the political and judicial agencies which have demanded a stop to the persecution of Mr. Assange and to proceed to his immediate release.
We urge the U.S. Department of Justice to drop all charges against Mr. Assange by relying on the U.S. Constitution itself, on human rights standards recognised by International Law, as well as fundamental humanitarian values, as the life of a journalist is at risk, and freedom of the press and the right to access to information globally are at risk.
Signatories:
24 March 2023, City of Buenos Aires, Argentina.