It’s hard to paint WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange as a family man, so much cloudy characterizations and intrigue have been crafted by the media for public consumption. Much of it has been very far from the truth. Is he unkind to cats? Was he a poor houseguest in the Ecuadorian Embassy? The truth is that Julian Assange is a married man with a beautiful wife dedicated to his freedom and two sons, ages five and six. Like many of us, the importance of the survival of our families has become prominent in our values. Stella describes how she helps Julian’s mental health, “Julian has been in a high security prison for almost five years. I try to keep him connected to the day to day. I try to keep him connected to the reality outside, because if it becomes too much about those prison walls, then it’s easy to get lost.”
U.S. President Joe Biden recently told reporters that the U.S. is considering Australia’s request asking to release Julian Assange from charges which have caused his detention for potential extradition to the United States for trial. This had been a contentious topic for the U.S., whenever asked, they have typically referred people to the U.S. Department of Justice. But now that it has been signaled that there are diplomatic talks going on, U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated yesterday that “that is a good way to try to get me to comment on extradition matters, but I’m going to refrain from doing so, I would refer you to the Department of Justice.” Personally though, Spokesman Miller, tweeted from his personal Twitter account in 2019, that the allegations in the U.S. indictment against Assange was “Dangerous and probably unconstitutional. DOJ doesn’t get to decide who is deserving of first amendment protections and who isn’t. There’s a reason we wouldn’t charge this in the Obama administration.”
Being that it has become a tradition for truth to get out to the public through whistleblowers such as U.S. Army Intelligence Officer Chelsea Manning, through news publications such as The Washington Post, The New York Times and WikiLeaks, the question of Assange’s role in Manning’s information being made public has come front and center. Did Julian Assange really help Chelsea Manning crack passwords, hack into government computers or cover her tracks as the U.S. claims?
“She already had authorisation [to access the datasets].” Computer forensic expert Patrick Eller told the UK Court in 2020. Allegations that Julian Assange attempted to help former Manning crack a password and leak classified material anonymously do not fit with the evidence. He states that “Merely logging into a different local user account on the computer (such as ftp user) would not anonymise Manning at all because the IP address of the computer would remain the same regardless of what user account is in use.” “There was no evidence that Manning had attempted to download these documents anonymously and no indication that she was trying to crack the ftp user account password,” said Eller.
The allegation that Assange tried to help Manning remain anonymous has no supporting evidence. The U.S. is trying to convict on baseless allegations. There is no evidence that Manning and Assange spoke prior to Manning uploading her whistleblower information to WikiLeaks secure site. In her book, READEME.txt: A Memoir, Manning writes: “I called switchboards at The Washington Post and The New York Times, trying to get transferred to a reporter who would understand what I was offering them. I reached one at the Post, and we talked briefly, I left a message with my Skype number at the Times, but I never heard back. I said only that I worked in Defense. I tried to get them to understand. What I have is everything about two wars, I said over the phone. This is what asymmetric warfare looks like, uncut; this is the whole thing. I wanted this information published in a widely read outlet that could defend itself. But I wasn’t getting anywhere.”
If the U.S.’s allegations are refuted by the facts of the Chelsea Manning trial, then why does the U.S.’s indictment carry any viability with the UK High Court? The UK High Court has asked the U.S. to give assurances that it will give Assange his first amendment rights, will not prejudice against him because of his nationality and will not attach the death penalty with any additional charges before it considers extraditing him. But this has gone on for 5 years with Assange being held in solitary confinement in conditions assessed by two UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture as “He continues to be detained under oppressive conditions of isolation and surveillance, not justified by his detention status.” Assange has been in ghastly conditions, definitely an overkill for someone who is not a violent criminal.
Is holding someone in legal limbo indefinitely without charge, a breach of process? The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute condemns the mistreatment of Julian Assange and issued this statement: “The IBAHRI is concerned that the mistreatment of Julian Assange constitutes breaches of his right to a fair trial and protections enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the UK is party. It is deeply shocking that as a mature democracy in which the rule of law and the rights of individuals are preserved, the UK Government has been silent and has taken no action to terminate such gross and disproportionate conduct by Crown officials. As well, we are surprised that the presiding judge has reportedly said and done nothing to rebuke the officials and their superiors for such conduct in the case of an accused whose offence is not one of personal violence. Many countries in the world look to Britain as an example in such matters. On this occasion, the example is shocking and excessive. It is reminiscent of the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal which can happen when prison officials are not trained in the basic human rights of detainees and the Nelson Mandela Rules.”
https://www.ibanet.org/article/C05C57EE-1FEE-47DC-99F9-26824208A750
With no governing global ruling body exercising its authority over the United States State Department, Julian Assange seems to be entrapped in a web of endless legal entanglements, by design. With him, is the future survival of press freedoms and journalism, because if the U.S. is successful in its attempt to prosecute a foreign journalist publishing on foreign soil, then all journalists all over the world are in jeopardy of being arrested for publishing truths that the public needs to know, but governments don’t want them to know. An Assange conviction could mean that journalists everywhere only publish what governments allow them to publish. It has far-reaching ramifications for the survival of the first amendment for public and press. Meanwhile Julian Assange’s survival depends on the public to unite in one voice and call for his freedom. Stella Assange: “This just has to stop. Right now, he’s in a very precarious situation where his health is in decline and that in itself is perhaps the greatest risk.” For Assange, massive public outcry cannot come a moment too soon.
What The Assange Case Means for the Integrity of Journalism