Category: Expressions of Support

On the 27th July 2022, James Ricketson sent this letter of support to the US Ambassador, President Joe Biden and Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese

Ms Caroline Kennedy
United States Ambassador to Australia
US Embassy.
Level 11, MLC Centre
19-29 Martin Place,
Sydney 2000                                                                                      27th July 2022

Dear Ambassador

Welcome to Australia.

In your role as Ambassador it is not appropriate for you to engage in public discussion about political matters, be they Australian or those of the United States. I understand that.

In my role as a journalist it is appropriate, however, to advocate on behalf of fellow journalist, Julian Assange – an Australian citizen facing a probable death sentence if he is extradited to the United States. 

Mr Assange’s crime: Exercising the First Amendment rights that would apply to him if he were a US citizen.

On 27th April 1961, your father, John F. Kennedy, expressed the importance of freedom on the press most eloquently. Speaking to the assembled media at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York,  he said:

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

John F. Kennedy 27th April 1961

These words apply in 2022, as much as they did at the height of the Cold War.

In reference to the USSR, JFK said:

 “Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your (the 4th Estate’s) second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.”

John F. Kennedy In reference to the USSR

Julian Assange has applied the precepts outlined here by your father, and reiterated by President Biden.

Please remind your President, and those in the Biden administration that you serve, of your father’s words.

yours sincerely
James Ricketson
cc President Joe Biden
Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese

This AAP story has been widely syndicated across Australia.
Refer Shepparton News website Assange advocates quote Kennedy to Kennedy

On the 13th July 2022, Kevin Gosztola reports in ScheerPost

Note: The meeting between President Biden and President Obrador took place the day before this article was published on ScheerPost. More information will be provided shortly.

When Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador meets with United States President Joe Biden on July 12, he plans to once again urge the US government to drop the charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Obrador is one of the few presidents in the world, who has expressed genuine support for Assange and even offered to engage in talks about asylum in Mexico.

“If they take him to the United States and he is sentenced to the maximum penalty and to die in prison, we must start a campaign to tear down the Statue of Liberty,” Obrador said, as he referred to Assange during a press conference on July 4.

According to El País, Obrador insisted that the Statue of Liberty would “no longer be a symbol of freedom” if Assange was extradited. He maintained there could be “no silence” on the matter.

The UK government authorized Assange’s extradition on June 17. Assange’s legal team appealed the decision.

While it is a welcome development that an ally and neighboring country is challenging the US to uphold press freedom, the remarks from Obrador apparently came while deflecting criticism of Mexico from Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Mexico is one of the more dangerous countries in Latin America for journalists. RSF, which also supports Assange, condemned Mexico after “Yesenia Mollinedo, the founder and editor of the Facebook news outlet El Veraz, and Sheila Johana García, a video reporter for El Veraz,” were “gunned down in broad daylight in Cosoleacaque, in the eastern state of Veracruz.”

“[RSF] is appalled by the murders of three more reporters in less than a week in Mexico, which—subject to confirmation by RSF’s investigations—will bring the total number of Mexican journalists killed in connection with their work since the start of the year to 11,” the press freedom organization declared.

With no evidence, Obrador suggested RSF’s statement was part of a “smear campaign against the government of Mexico.”

But Obrador is not alone when it comes to invoking the Assange case to deflect responsibility. Several leaders throughout the world, including in China, Russia, and Azerbaijan, have responded to Western criticism of how their governments treat journalists by asking how the US and United Kingdom can claim to support press freedom when Assange is in jail.

Additionally, supporting Assange is a way for the Mexico government to assert its independence and breakaway from a history of US meddling and destabilization in Latin America. After all, this is partly why Ecuador President Rafael Correa granted political asylum to Assange in 2012 and allowed the WikiLeaks founder to live in the country’s London embassy.

Obrador is recognized as Mexico’s first left-wing president in decades.

In the last week of June, Obrador contended that Assange is the “best journalist of our time, in the world. And he has been, I repeat, very unjustly treated, worse than a criminal. That is a shame for the world.” He added, “Mexico opens its doors to Assange.”

Obrador, as Ben Norton recounted for Multipolarista, paused during this press conference to show a clip from the “Collateral Murder” video, which was released by US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks. The video showed a 2007 Apache helicopter attack by US soldiers in Baghdad. The troops killed two Reuters journalists and a father who stopped his van to provide aid.

The Mexico leader took a firm stand in June and refused to attend the Summit of the Americas, which was hosted by the US State Department in Los Angeles. He boycotted the summit because the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua were barred.

Obrador’s boycott inspired the leaders of Bolivia, Guatemala, and Honduras to join Mexico in giving the US government the cold shoulder. It effectively ensured the so-called democracy summit was sparsely attended and would be an entirely inconsequential gathering for all involved.

To deal with the fallout, US officials invited Obrador to the White House.

One of the earliest statements of support from Obrador came on January 3, 2020. He highlighted the US diplomatic cables that Assange published, which also came from Manning.

“I don’t know if he has recognized that he acted against rules and norms of a political system, but at the time these cables demonstrated how the world system functions in its authoritarian nature,” Lopez Obrador said. “Hopefully consideration will be given to this, and he’s released and won’t continue to be tortured.”

Obrador asked President Donald Trump to pardon Assange, but Trump was too concerned with whether senators in the Republican Party would vote to impeach him. He declined to issue a pardon.

On January 4, 2021, Obrador cheered the initial decision by a UK district court to block Assange’s extradition. He also offered asylum.

The Crown Prosecution Service ruthlessly used Obrador’s asylum offer to keep Assange in jail.

Clair Dobbin QC, a prosecutor, claimed Assange had a history of attempts to evade extradition. He was willing to live in the Ecuador embassy and might “flee” to the Mexico embassy if he believed the US government would ultimately win their appeal, she argued.

The tactic helped to persuade District Judge Vanessa Baraitser. Bail was denied two days after ruling that incarceration in the United States would lead Assange to act upon a single-minded determination to take his own life, an impulse he could not control.

Read original article in ScheerPost

Reported meeting articles
Washington Post (Subscription article)

Google translation
“If Assange is brought to the US, sentenced to the maximum sentence and sentenced to death in prison, we must start a campaign to bring down the Statue of Liberty.” – The Mexican President@lopezobrador_has called for the US to drop the charges against Julian Assange. Image:@LatuffCartoons

"Si llevan a Assange a EE.UU., lo condenan a pena máxima y a morir en prisión, debemos iniciar una campaña para derribar la Estatua de la Libertad". – El presidente mexicano @lopezobrador_ ha pedido que EEUU retire los cargos contra Julian Assange.

Imagen: @LatuffCartoons pic.twitter.com/RCYw5VFOzd

— Asamblea Internacional de los Pueblos (@asambleapueblos) July 7, 2022

The presidents of Mexico and the U.S. will meet amid a surge in migration to both countries and growing differences on energy, trade and WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange’s extradition to the U.S. https://t.co/VtPgnrJvxw

— WSJ Politics (@WSJPolitics) July 12, 2022

The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) reported on 22nd June Mexico’s offer of asylum to Julian Assange – Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador says his country would ‘open its doors to Julian Assange’

On the 12th July 2022, Kathryn Kelly and Susan Connelly, Co-convenors of the Alliance Against Political Prosecutions, reported in the Canberra Times and other regional papers

The legacies of the Morrison government and, in particular, the legacy of former attorney-general Christian Porter have been damaging to many sectors of our society, the system of justice being a crucial one.

The partisan appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is one aspect of that damage. But the ones that most concern the Alliance Against Political Prosecutions are the prosecutions of Bernard Collaery, Witness K, David McBride and Richard Boyle.

We applaud the decision by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to discontinue the prosecution of Collaery, and it gives us hope that faith in our justice system can be restored. It is important that the “secret” documents from that case are kept secure, perhaps by the Attorney-General, so that they don’t “inadvertently” disappear before any investigation into the 2004 bugging operation can be undertaken.

We hope Dreyfus will seek a pardon for Witness K and both men will receive compensation for the terrible stress they have been put through since 2013 when Witness K’s passport was taken and Collaery’s office was raided. 

The lack of Australian Government action to protect Australian citizen, Julian Assange, is also a serious concern. Assange’s case is urgent and is a real threat to press freedom. It intimidates journalists everywhere with the risk that, if they publish material critical of Washington actions, they could be charged and extradited to the US. Thousands of parliamentarians, journalists, lawyers and supporters around the world have called for his freedom. 

Assange has suffered treatment worse than many murderers, and has been described by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, as a victim of psychological torture. His health has seriously deteriorated, and he is reportedly at risk of suicide if extradited. He has committed no crime, unless embarrassing the US government is illegal. How can an Australian government let this situation continue?

The Morrison government did nothing to try and secure the release of this Australian citizen. The Albanese government must work harder to gain his freedom. Quiet diplomacy with the UK government may not be enough in this political trial. But a new UK prime minister may be willing to accede to a request from Australia.

George Brandis reportedly said: “Australia was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to intervene in the proceedings. We would not intervene in those proceedings.” But did the government seek standing to protect its citizen? If they didn’t, I’d like an explanation as to why the Australian government can’t seek standing in the court or make an amicus curiae (friend of the court) submission to argue for an end to the extradition. 

The time to make extra effort in the UK is now. Of course, they still need to be urged to drop the charges. 

The prosecution of whistleblowers, Major David McBride and former Australian Tax Office employee Richard Boyle, are also patently unjust and not in the public interest. They too have suffered years of stress and loss of income. Are we really trying to intimidate people who see wrongdoing, from reporting it? 

Richard Boyle faces court in Adelaide on 25 July to put his public interest disclosure defence, and David McBride has a similar defence hearing coming up in a few months.

If their defence arguments fail (and the legislation has been criticised as being ineffective) their trials could go on for a considerable time. The cost of all these cases is significant. 

The principle of non-interference in legal cases is an important one, but it should not be utilised when these prosecutions are clearly unjust. Dreyfus should discontinue these two long-standing cases which also began in Porter’s time as attorney-general. 

The agenda now must include establishing the long overdue ICAC to investigate, amongst a long list of matters: the 2004 Australian government bugging of the Timor-Leste government offices, legislation to strengthen whistleblower protections, and a review of the National Security Information Act, which enabled prosecution lawyers to close the court on so many occasions in the Collaery and Witness K cases.

Read original article in Canberra Times
and more from the Alliance Against Political Prosecutions on Julian Assange

On the 6th July 2022, members of the Bundestag, Sevim Dagdelen and Sören Pellmann, posted the passing of a motion supporting the release of Julian Assange in the Fraction DIE LINKE (Group THE LEFT) web site (Google Translation)

“For the first time, the German Bundestag condemns in the strongest possible terms the psychological torture of journalist Julian Assange in British custody and the associated attack on press freedom in Germany and Europe. The consideration of a corresponding petition in the Petitions Committee today is a mandate to the traffic light government to campaign for the release of Julian Assange,” explains Sören Pellmann, chairman of the DIE LINKE parliamentary group in the Petitions Committee.

Sevim Dagdelen, chairwoman of the DIE LINKE parliamentary group in the Foreign Affairs Committee, explains the vote: “The decision in the German Bundestag for the life and freedom of Julian Assange is a historic decision. For years, MPs from across factions have been campaigning for the release of Julian Assange, and this has now also been decided by parliament. The federal government must finally give up its inaction, respect the vote of the Bundestag and urge its partners in the USA and Great Britain for an end to the political persecution of Julian Assange. Those who uncover war crimes do not belong in prison, but those who commit and order them.”

Supporting news coverage

Read original article in German

On the 21st June 2022, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) issued this statement

MEAA Media Federal President Karen Percy has written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong urging them to press the United States to drop espionage charges against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. Read the letter:

220620_MEAA_letter_to_PM_and_FM_re_Assange

The UK Government’s decision to uphold the application by the US Department of Justice to extradite Australian publisher Julian Assange imperils journalists everywhere, says the union  for Australia’s journalists.

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance calls on the Australian Government to take urgent steps to lobby the US and UK Governments to drop all charges against Assange and to allow him to be with his wife and children.

Assange, a MEAA member since 2007, may only have a slim chance of challenging extradition to face espionage charges for releasing US government records that revealed the US military committed war crimes against civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the killing of two Reuters journalists.

If found guilty, Assange faces a jail term of up to 175 years.

MEAA Media section Federal President Karen Percy said: “We urge the new Australian government to act on Julian Assange’s behalf and lobby for his release.

“The actions of the US are a warning sign to journalists and whistleblowers everywhere and undermine the importance of uncovering wrongdoing.

“Our thoughts are with Julian and his family at this difficult time.”

In 2011 WikiLeaks was awarded the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in recognition of the impact WikiLeaks’ actions had on public interest journalism by assisting whistleblowers to tell their stories.

At the time the Walkley judges said WikiLeaks applied new technology to ‘penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup’.

This type of publishing partnership has been repeated by other media outlets since, utilising whistleblowers’ leaks to expose global tax avoidance schemes, among other stories. In the WikiLeaks example, only Assange has been charged.

None of WikiLeaks media partners have been cited in any US government legal actions because of their collaboration with Assange.

Read original article on MEAA website

On the 20th June 2022, The Walkley Foundation posted a statement of support for Julian Assange

The Chair of the Walkley Foundation, Adele Ferguson, has called on the Australian Government to stand up for press freedom and intervene in the case of  Julian Assange. 

On Friday, June 17, UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel, approved the extradition of Assange to the US, where he is charged with breaching the US Espionage Act. Assange faces up to 175 years in jail if convicted: WikiLeaks immediately announced an appeal. 

(Adele Ferguson pictured) In 2011, WikiLeaks received a Walkley Award for its outstanding contribution to journalism. Walkley judges said, “While not without flaws, the Walkley Trustees believe that by designing and constructing a means to encourage whistleblowers, WikiLeaks and its editor-in-chief Julian Assange took a brave, determined and independent stand for freedom of speech and transparency that has empowered people all over the world. And in the process, they have triggered a robust debate inside and outside the media about official secrecy, the public’s right to know and the future of journalism.”

Among the Wikileaks revelations, sourced by former US Army intelligence analyst and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, was video of US helicopter attacks in Baghdad that killed 11 civilians including two Reuters journalists. 

Ferguson, a Gold Walkley Award-Winning journalist said, “the decision to extradite Julian Assange to the US should be a clarion call to anyone who cares about journalism and democracy.” 

“Assange has been languishing for years and it is high time he is brought home. Press freedom and human rights are vital to our society and what is happening sets a very dangerous precedent at a time when press freedom in this country is being chipped away. This is the time for the government to stand up for press freedom.” 

The Walkley Foundation CEO, Shona Martyn said, “we are witnessing the erosion of our democracy and press freedoms which of course will hinder the dissemination of truth and allow governments to skirt responsibility and repercussions for inappropriate and criminal actions. All journalists and the community at large should be concerned by this outcome.” 

The UK action has prompted a flurry of debate from Australian politicians urging the Federal Government to intervene. 

Independent Member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender said on Twitter, “It’s time for Anthony Albanese to pick up the phone, call Joe Biden, and urge him to intervene so Julian Assange isn’t unjustifiably imprisoned.” 

Western Australian Green Senator Jordon Steele-John said, “the news that the UK has decided to extradite Julian Assange to the US makes me feel sick and deeply saddened. Julian cannot be left to die in prison. The Australian Government must intervene. Anthony Albanese, it’s time to pick up the phone to Washington.” 

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong issued a joint statement on June 17 with Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, saying the Australian government could not intervene in the legal matters of another country. 

“The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to offer consular assistance to Mr Assange, noting that Australia is not a party to Mr Assange’s case, nor can the Australian government intervene in the legal matters of another country. 

“We will continue to convey our expectations that Mr Assange is entitled to due process, humane and fair treatment, access to proper medical care, and access to his legal team. 

“The Australian government has been clear in our view that Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and that it should be brought to a close.” 

Many mainstream media organisations published their own reports based on Wikileaks, including the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, The Guardian in the United Kingdom, The New York Times in the US, El Pais in Spain, Le Monde in France and Der Spiegel in Germany. 

There has been no attempt by the US Government to prosecute any of these journalists. In 2013 Manning was charged with espionage offences and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. Manning’s sentence was commuted in 2017 by then President Barack Obama. 

Sources
SMH
The Guardian

Read Original article in the Walkey web site

On the 23rd May 2022, Joe Lauria wrote in ScheerPost

The British home secretary is under pressure as she’s about to decide whether to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

At some point during the next nine days, British Home Secretary Priti Patel will decide whether or not to extradite imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States to face espionage charges for publishing accurate information revealing U.S. war crimes.

Pressure is building from both sides on the home secretary.  Press freedom and human rights organizations, a Nobel laureate, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, journalists and Assange supporters have appealed to Patel to let Assange go.  

While it would be deemed improper for outside influence to be brought on judges, it would not be fanciful to imagine that behind the scenes Patel is getting the message from the U.S. Department of Justice and possibly from U.S. and U.K. intelligence services about what is expected of her.

The home secretary should know without prodding what the U.S. and British governments want her to do. Patel is a highly-ambitious politician who no doubt will calculate how her decision will impact her career. 

“Politicians think about their next election, they think about their voters … that’s what makes them tick,” Kristinn Hrafnnson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, told Consortium News at a protest outside the Home Office in London last Wednesday. “For the first time it’s in the hands of a politician, and Priti Patel, if she wants to think about her legacy … she should do the right thing.” 

“Politics is a strange beast,” Hrafnsson said. “Anything can happen. I’m hoping this is something that will be taken up in the Cabinet here. Let’s not forget that Boris Johnson was a journalist. He was part of the media community and should have better understanding of this case than many others.”

Patel is acting after the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of a High Court decision to overturn a lower court ruling barring Assange’s extradition on health grounds and the danger of U.S. prisons. The High Court decided solely on conditional U.S. promises that Assange would be well treated in custody.

With the courts no longer involved and the decision solely in Patel’s hands, the case now is purely political, meaning political pressure can be brought to bear on the home secretary.  

“The home secretary has the discretion to block this extradition, and there is a lot of pressure from civil society and press freedom groups for her to do so,” said Stella Assange at a film screening on Thursday. 

She said the “heaviest” pressure had come from Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, “urging Patel to block it.” Mijatovic wrote to Patel on May 10, saying: 

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquive has also written to Patel. “I join the growing collective concern about the violations of the human, civil and political rights of Mr. Julian Assange,” the Argentine wrote. He called the extradition request “illegal and abusive” and said it imperiled press freedom and could bring “potentially fatal consequences” to Assange. 

Amnesty International released a statement at the end of April calling on Patel to deny extradition. “If the Home Secretary certifies the US request to extradite Julian Assange it will violate the prohibition against torture and set an alarming precedent for publishers and journalists around the world,” Amnesty said. It went on:

“There has been a huge mobilization all over Europe in many countries and 1,800 journalists have written an open letter to Priti Patel saying that this case should be blocked because it affects their safety because of the implications for global press freedom,” Stella Assange said. 

Reporters Without Borders submitted a petition to Patel on Thursday with 65,000 signatures. It was delivered to British embassies in eight countries, Assange said.  More than  700,000 Australians have also signed a petition.

New Australian Government  

The election on Friday of just the fourth Labor government in Australia since the Second World War may bode well for Assange. The new prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said publicly that Assange should be returned to his native Australia. 

It is now up to the new prime minister to pick up the phone and call Joe Biden to tell him that “enough is enough” means the prosecution must be dropped and Assange sent home. He also knows Patel’s phone number. 

“Albanese, I hope he will stick to his promises and convictions,” Hrafnsson said. But he is skeptical. “I’ve been a journalist for 30 years to rely on politicians is something … I’d rather be betting on the card table I guess.” 

Cross Appeal 

If Patel decides to extradite Assange it’s not the end of the legal road for Assange. He has the option of launching a “cross” appeal to the High Court. Though he won in magistrate’s court on health grounds and the condition of U.S. prisons, the judge ruled on every other point of law in Washington’s favor. 

Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied that the case was a political offense in violation of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty; that it violated the U.S. first amendment and threatened press freedom; and that Assange’s rights to due process were violated when it was revealed that the C.I.A. had spied on privileged conversations with his lawyers and she ignored testimony that the C.I.A. had discussed kidnapping or poisoning Assange.  

“The judges will have all the other elements, the important elements, that were discussed by the magistrate’s court but disregarded by the High Court because it was not the appeal point,” Hrafnsson said. The U.S. appeal was only about Assange’s health and U.S. prison conditions and Washington won because it convinced the judges of the credibility of its conditional assurances to treat Assange humanely.  

Since Baraitser’s Jan. 4, 2021 decision, other facts have emerged that could form part of the cross appeal. The C.I.A. plot against Assange was further corroborated by U.S. officials in a Yahoo! Newsreport. A key U.S. witness on computer charges against Assange recanted his testimony. And Assange’s health has further deteriorated when he suffered a mini-stroke last October.  

Assange’s legal team hopes the High Court will hear the cross appeal on at least some of the nine points it would raise. “If Priti Patel signs the extradition, then we will be given the opportunity to seek to appeal on all the points that were lost,” said Stella Assange. “It’s basically as if we had lost back in 2021. That’s the position we are in now. ”

Read original article in Scheerpost

On the 19th May 2022, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel delivered this letter to UK Secretary of State, Priti Patel.

The Rt. Hon Priti Patel
Secretary of State for the Home Department
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

19 May 2022

Dear Home Secretary,

I am writing to you with deep concerns for the safety of Mr Julian Paul Assange who is facing extradition to the United States. I am writing to ask you to reject the US government’s extradition request of Mr Assange, a decision now under the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

On 4 January 2021, the British court barred Mr Assange extradition on the grounds of section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. The court ruled that Mr Assange’s “suicidal impulses would come from his psychiatric diagnoses rather than his own voluntary act”, rendering “oppressive” in terms of the law to extradite him”. The Court recognised that there is a great likelihood that if extradite, that Mr Assange will end his own life.

The United Nations Official report also concluded on 1 November 2019 that “[u]nless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr. Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.” The extradition to the United States will aggravate those conditions. Over 60 doctors from around the world raised concerns about the precarious state of Mr. Assange’s physical and mental health which included fears for his life. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute states that, in view of Mr Assange being a victim of psychological torture, his extradition to the USA would be also illegal under international human rights law.

The Council of Europe considers that Mr Assange’s treatment to be among “the most severe threats to media freedom”.

Amnesty International, press freedom and human rights organisations, legal, medical and other professional associations have called for Mr Assange’s immediate release. They condemned the illegality of this extradition proceedings under procedural (breach of the right of a fair trial) and material grounds.

The EU Parliament, Parliamentarians, head of states and former head of States world-wide, legal practitioners and legal academics express concerns about the violations of Mr. Julian Assange’s fundamental human, civil and political rights and the precedent his persecution is setting.

I join the growing collective concerns, which have been expressed about the violations of Mr. Julian Assange’s fundamental human, civil and political rights and the precedent his persecution is setting for press freedom and the assertion of the universal jurisdiction of the United States of America. The United Kingdom, a sovereign country with longstanding tradition in the upholding the rule of law, should refuse the abusive and illegal extradition request by the United States of America.

Former Secretary of State for the Home Department, Theresa May, has correctly halted Gary McKinnon’s extradition in recognition of the same psychiatric condition as Mr Assange.

There could be potentially fatal consequences if the United Kingdom chooses to pursue this extradition. Therefore, I urge you, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to uphold the rule of law and reject the extradition order. 

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel

Nobel Prize for Peace

Read original post on the Don’t Extradite Assange web site

On the 18th May 2022, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, called on UK Home Secretary Priti Patel not to extradite Julian Assange.

In a letter, published today, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, called on UK Home Secretary Priti Patel not to extradite Julian Assange.

Writing in view of the impending decision on Mr Assange’s extradition, the Commissioner noted that the wider human rights implications of doing so had not yet been adequately considered in the extradition proceedings. She particularly highlighted that the indictment by the United States against Mr Assange raised important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including information that exposes human rights violations. She concluded that allowing Mr Assange’s extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom, and could ultimately hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies.

The letter reads

CommDH202211_Letter-to-UK-Secretary-of-State-for-the-Home-Department_EN

Read original article at Council Of Europe web site
And the Commissioner’s earlier statement dated 20 February 2020: “Julian Assange should not be extradited due to potential impact on press freedom and concerns about ill-treatment”

On the 16th May Whistleblower & Source Protection Program (WHISPeR) posted the letter below calling on UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel, to reject the US government’s request to extradite Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange

WHISPeR-Urges-UK-Against-Assange-Extradition-2

Read original posting on WHISPeR web site