[handity]

The US has exerted unbelievable pressure to ensure Assange remains a non-threat. Just because they're happy with the current state of affairs doesn't mean Assange has anything to gain by "facing the court and just getting it over with".

The best outcome would be for the UK to uphold its own treaties, refuse to extradite Assange, and allow him to walk free. Anything less would be a travesty and miscarriage of justice.

The idea that the US would try him in the Eastern District of Virginia "Espionage Court", only to throw up their hands in defeat when Assange's lawyers point out that his persecution is illegal, is laughable. If he is extradited, he will rot in a supermax prison, which from first hand testimony[1] is far worse than even Belmarsh.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-last-days-of-julian-assan...

[andrewla]

He will have to be put on trial (by a jury if he so elects) and convicted before he goes to prison; there is no automatic conviction and even if he is refuse bail he will not be in prison.

If the UK refuses to extradite him, then it's a matter of his looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life waiting for the hood and a chopper out. Besides, I have no faith in the UK court' ability to do anything here; they're the ones who have held him without trial or conviction all this time anyway.

I admit that some of my desire here is selfish -- I feel that Assange being tried and acquitted is a greater win for journalism in the US and is worth the risk. Obviously as an individual he does not agree with this (thus his opposition to extradition in the first place).

I do feel that the current status quo is the most favorable in creating the chilling effect that the US national security establishment wants to convey -- Manning and Winner both served their time and are free now; if Assange had been able to foresee what his life would look like now in 2010, he probably would have chosen to turn himself in to the US authorities in the first place, because even were he convicted he'd be free by now.

[handity]

I believe your hope that he will face anything like a fair trial in the US is misplaced. The conviction the US seeks under the Espionage Act is as good as automatic. There are books and numerous articles covering in minute detail the extraordinary nature of his persecution, detailing the numerous perversions of justice involved.

[andrewla]

> The conviction the US seeks under the Espionage Act is as good as automatic

I find this assessment to be unsupported.

Name a single journalist successfully prosecuted under the Espionage Act. If you have to go back to the 1920s to find an example, then I think I've made my point. Ellsberg was the only journalist in modern times to even be charged under it, and his charges were dismissed.

[boomboomsubban]

>Ellsberg was the only journalist in modern times to even be charged under it, and his charges were dismissed..

His charges were dismissed after the Judge refused to allow him to present a defense. And they were dismissed because the FBI had illegally wiretapped him, not because of anything to do with the case itself.

It's already come out that Assange was constantly wiretapped throughout his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy, including during meetings with his lawyer. Do you think the US would be pushing extradition if they thought a judge would dismiss the case based on that?

[andrewla]

> Do you think the US would be pushing extradition if they thought a judge would dismiss the case based on that?

Just because they don't think it will happen does not mean that it will not happen. Nonetheless, you are correct -- Ellsberg was not acquitted, so there was no precedent set, and no guarantee that Assange will be acquitted or have his charges dismissed for similar cause.

All I'm saying is that we don't have a precedent, so it is very far from obvious that the result of a trial would be a conviction. Even the case against Ellsberg was stronger, since he had direct access to the information through his work at RAND.

[handity]

That is, in fact, an argument brought up by Assange's lawyers in the recent appeal. I know I've seen this brought up elsewhere as well, here is from Craig Murray:

'The point of foreseeability had not been countered. There was no effort made to counter it. In 2010 it could not have been foreseen that publication would bring espionage charges against the publisher. It had never happened before. Encouraging a whistleblower to produce documents was definitely not unprecedented. That was an absurd claim. It was everyday journalistic activity, as witnesses had testified. No witnesses had been produced to say the opposite.'

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/02/assange-fina...

[marcus_holmes]

He will not be tried as a journalist. The US govt will not recognise his status as a journalist, so none of the legal protections and precedents will be applied.

He's just some foreign civilian who aided Manning in obtaining state secrets and then published those state secrets on his blog.

He doesn't/didn't work for a recognised journalistic organisation, he doesn't belong to a journalist union or professional body, he doesn't hold a qualification in journalism. He's "just a blogger" and so none of the precedents matter.

[andrewla]

> He will not be tried as a journalist. The US govt will not recognise his status as a journalist

It's not something that the US govt gets to decide. They can argue it in court, but this sort of finding of fact is a matter for the jury, not for the prosecutor or even the judge to decide. Unless he opts for a bench trial, in which case the judge gets to decide, but that is at his option -- nobody can force him to forgo a jury.

Ellsberg did not receive automatic protections as a journalist either, despite the fact that he was by any definition a journalist (and certainly by your criteria) -- he was charged and tried under the Espionage Act, and only the specific circumstances involved resulted in the case's dismissal.

The government will not put all its eggs in the "he's not a journalist" basket either; they'll offer an array of charges so even if the jury finds that he is a journalist, he will not be completely shielded. Nonetheless I think the odds are in his favor; the government will in the end almost certainly have to show evidence of tangible (not just reputational) harm, and that will open the door to "compelling public interest" arguments based on the particular information brought to light.

[marcus_holmes]

I hope you're right. I hope we never have to find out.

In his shoes, given that we already know the US govt had a plan to poison and/or kidnap him, I would not trust that I'd receive a fair trial in the USA.

[handity]

The US claims that he is "not a journalist" are misdirection tantamount to lies. The correct response is not to defend Assange's status as a journalist, though I understand where that desire comes from, but to call out the lie for what it is.

There is no separate legal system for journalists. The charge is a brand new one, so there is no precedent to ignore. Nobody, journalist or otherwise, has ever been tried under the espionage act for publishing classified material.

[Etherlord87]

> [...]before he goes to prison[...]

And where is he now?

[andrewla]

This is the core of the injustice of what is happening to him. He is currently in prison (in England, not the US) with no charge, no trial, and no conviction. It is a mockery of justice. The US has drifted far from our principles of "speedy trials" over which we fought a war of independence, but at least when it happens in the US there are charges and an indictment.