Almost obscured on its perch outside the Royal Courts of Justice, amid the crush of camera crews and vociferous supporters of Julian Assange, was the statue of Samuel Johnson, a man who also knew the importance of getting information out to as wide an audience as possible. “To keep your secret is wisdom,” is one of his better known observations, “but to expect others to keep it is folly.”
The high court decision to grant leave to appeal to Assange was a further reminder to the US authorities and their apologists in Britain of the folly inherent in their attempt to extradite and jail a man whose main offence is publishing the shameful secrets of the US government and its armed forces. In a just world, the court would have brought this whole absurd legal process to an end there and then, but the fact that an appeal has been granted is both a defeat for the US and renewed cause for hope for Assange.
The large crowds inside and outside the court, the sympathetic toots of support from passing tourist buses and cars, and the presence of journalists from all over the world was a reminder of how the case has taken on an international impetus unthinkable a few years ago. One large poster outside the nearest underground station to the court spelled out another message: “Publishing is not a crime. War crimes are.” And a neighbouring poster printed the statements of solid support for Assange from such bodies as the International Federation of Journalists, PEN, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International.
The latest hearing cameafter the US was asked to provide assurances that Assange would not be subject to the death penalty if extradited and would be entitled to use the first-amendment right to free speech as part of his defence, although he is not an American citizen. While the US accepted that there would be no attempt to execute Assange – who knows, possibly because it has had so many problems recently with bungled lethal injections – it failed to provide any such undertaking on the second ground. As Assange’s legal team of Edward Fitzgerald KC and Mark Summers KC pointed out, this was a “patently inadequate” assurance.
There have been hints that finally the US is realising the hypocrisy of calling on Russia to release two American journalists held by them at the same time as trying to hoist Assange out of Britain for punishment in the US for the similar offence of publishing information. Last month at the White House correspondents’ dinner in Washington, Joe Biden told his audience, to polite applause: “Journalism is clearly not a crime. Not here, not there, not anywhere in the world.” And last year on World Press Freedom Day, he said, “Courageous journalists around the world have shown time and again that they will not be silenced or intimidated … the United States sees them and stands with them.” Really?
Assange has now spent five years in Belmarsh prison after the seven years in increasingly difficult conditions in the Ecuadorian embassy where he had sought asylum. Anyone who has any doubts about the validity of the case on his behalf should read The Trial of Julian Assange by Nils Melzer, the former UN special rapporteur on torture. Melzer was originally disinclined to look at Assange’s case but he goes into deep, forensic detail about all the allegations made against him. “Even in the darkest room, the light of a single candle is enough to enable everyone to see,” is how he concludes. “Julian Assange has lit such a candle with his work.”
Once again, Assange was too unwell to attend Monday’s hearing, but his wife and father were both present. One of the many absurdities has been that he is being held in one of our highest security prisons when our whole jail system is bursting at its seams. He could quite easily be granted bail under whatever conditions deemed necessary so that he could be with his wife and two children. This should be a priority for him now.
And so this long saga continues. Few come out of it well. Both the British and American governments have shown themselves to be unconcerned about the press freedom they so glibly claim to support, if any of it shows them up in an unfavourable light. It was Priti Patel, when home secretary, who gave the go-ahead for extradition in the first place and none of her deferential successors have given any indication they would have the guts to challenge the US, as Theresa May did when she, as home secretary, refused to allow the extradition of Gary McKinnon in 2012. Only a handful of MPs have had the decency to speak up for Assange and he has never had the support from the media that should have been forthcoming. The judicial system could also easily have kicked this case out years ago, but there has been a spinelessness on display here too.
This whole prosecution and extradition attempt has been a folly – a cruel folly. The decision to allow the appeal is but one small step to correct it.
Duncan Campbell is a freelance writer who worked for the Guardian as crime correspondent and Los Angeles correspondent
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
