This is a running live update from a friend on the hearing for Julian Assange’s freedom in the UK High Court today, February 20, 2024. The hearing continues tomorrow. The freedom for all of us to publish our thoughts and feelings hangs in the balance. After that, the judges will deliberate likely for several weeks. *there is no mandatory frame of time, the estimate for a ruling is based on previous time-frames judges have taken in this case. The ruling could also be immediate.* If he is extradited to the US, and convicted which would most certainly happen if he is sent there, all of journalism, free speech, the free press and all of us bloggers will be fair game because of the precedent established. We must fight for Assange’s freedom because his freedom, is ours.

Assange Trial Day 1 live:

Assange’s lawyers have argued today that the CIA plotted to kill Julian Assange, and that he cannot be safely extradited to a country that planned his kidnapping/ assassination.

Fresh evidence shows options were presented directly to President Trump over killing Assange after Vault-7 leaks.

(Defense for Assange is establishing that entire US government was/is hostile to Assange and cannot therefore guarantee a safe trial. They are appealing the scope of previous findings ruled on by the court)

Defense has raised point that document U.S. is relying on for extradition contains clause forbidding extradition of political prisoners. Argues U.S. cannot simultaneously want to extradite because of political embarrassment while ignoring that section of the treaty.

Also raised was fact that Wikileaks was not the first or only outlet to receive said classified documents from Manning, but the prosecution has been selective (targeting Assange) with no explanation for this behavior.
(note*** for posterity. This is not entirely correct as the charges actually revolve around an unidentified WikiLeaks representative offering to help Manning obtain more* But* there is no way for positive identification of Assange possible as that representative, so it is a nonsequitor, legally speaking. Also, no such assistance took place.)

Assange trial live: Court breaks for lunch, will resume 2pm London time.

Defense is raising an Article 7 ECHR/ 5th Amendment argument, stating that multiple forms of classified material have been published and gone unprosecuted, stating there is no precedent in U.S. law for the prosecution of journalists.
They are arguing that the previous judge refused to engage that line of legal argument stating it should be resolved in U.S. courts because it is a 5th amendment issue (due process).
Defense argues that because Article 7 of the ECHR applies, the judge should have had to engage it and acknowledge its legal standing.
(defense for Assange is once more appealing the previous court actions and errors here).

Section 7 of the ECHR protects someone from being prosecuted for future crime. In other words retroactively making something illegal in order to prosecute them.

Sec 7 of ECHR: “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time when it was committed.”

Defense now raises article 10 of the ECHR saying that Manning’s actions in leaking information fall under the protection of freedom of speech and expression.

Article 10 of the ECHR protects whistleblowers if documents are authentic and it is well within the public interest to know.
It protects both their right to receive and send such information; including in cases of classified documents if, like in Manning’s case; said documents were improperly classified to cover up war crimes.

This pertains to the charge against Julian for allegedly (again, unprovable) offering to help Manning procure the documents if needed.

If in fact the documents were improperly classified and covering up war crimes (they were); then Manning as a whistleblower falls under that protection of the ECHR and by extension, the journalist helping break that story in public interest.

This is weighty legally because according to multiple reviews, no one was directly harmed by the release of said information.

Defense raises point about Assistant US District Attorney Gordon Kromberg claiming they could and would deny Assange first amendment rights.

Judge ask for clarification about previous judges saying there is no reason to suspect Assange’s first amendment rights would be infringed.
Defense explains that Both the assistant DA and the then-CIA head Pompeo both said that explicitly. Claiming that Assange had no rights in the U.S. This threat alone raises serious concerns about any guarantees made toward Assange’s safety or right to a fair trial.

Judge then asks if the U.S. actually gave the court any assurances as to Assange’s first amendment rights being protected or the rights of foreign nationals.

Defense replies that no such assurances have been made whatsoever.

Final ground of appeal is put forward by defense.

Given the designation by the CIA head that Wikileaks was a “hostile non state intelligence agency” giving the bureau authority to act without oversight of any kind, there are absolute threats to Assange’s life present in the case under articles 2 & 3 of the ECHR (Right to Life, and Freedom from Torture).

Defense argues that CIA could impose SAMS (Special Administrative Measures – can prevent lawyer access, bar all outside communication or contact for life) or if they wanted to; kill him with absolute legal impunity based on this designation.

Defense requests extradition order be rescinded based on its inconsistency with standing treaty.