The Assange extradition saga unravels the fabric of free speech

Editor's note: Adriel Kasonta, a special commentator for CGTN, is a London-based foreign affairs analyst and commentator. He is the founder of AK Consultancy and former chairman of the International Affairs Committee at Bow Group, the oldest conservative think tank in the UK. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In the hallowed halls of justice, the fate of Julian Assange hangs in the balance, a pendulum swinging between the pillars of free speech and the machinery of government power. The WikiLeaks founder, now facing the specter of extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States, stands as a symbol of the delicate balance between journalistic freedom and the legal constraints of the Espionage Act of 1917.

Assange, an Australian citizen, has been confined to the grim walls of London's Belmarsh Prison since 2019. His alleged crime? Revealing classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010 and 2011 that peeled back the curtain on American war crimes in the Middle East. The stakes are high – charges under the Espionage Act could condemn him to a staggering 175 years behind bars in the land that often touts itself as the bastion of free speech.

As Assange's lawyers fervently argue his case before the High Court in London, the narrative of his potential extradition unfurls against a backdrop of political intrigue and a relentless pursuit by the U.S. government. The crux of their defense? Assange, they contend, was merely engaged in the "ordinary journalistic practice of obtaining and publishing classified information – information that is both true and of obvious and important public interest," as stated by Edward Fitzgerald KC, one of Assange's legal champions.

The legal battlefield is strewn with complexities, with Assange's defenders invoking the ominous specter of political motivation behind the extradition bid. Mark Summers KC, another of Assange's legal guardians, boldly declares that the U.S. seeks retribution for Assange's political opinions – a move that skirts the boundaries of the Crown Prosecution Service's guidelines on extradition from the UK.

The allegations put forth by Assange's legal team go beyond the courtroom drama. They suggest a sinister undercurrent – a claim, not yet evidentially tested, that the Central Intelligence Agency plotted to assassinate Assange during his seven-year refuge in Ecuador's London embassy.

A plot only thwarted, according to Summers, when UK authorities balked at the prospect of a rendition or a shootout on the streets of London. It's a tale that feels more like a spy thriller than a legal proceeding, yet it underscores the gravity of the situation.

As the High Court deliberates on Assange's plea for a full appeal hearing and challenging the extradition order signed by then-UK Home Secretary Priti Patel in 2022, the potential outcomes cast a long shadow. Should the appeal be denied, Assange could be extradited within 28 days unless the European Court of Human Rights intervenes. Theoretically, this could temporarily halt his extradition, but the wheels of justice grind relentlessly.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Alice Jill Edwards adds her voice to the chorus, urging Britain to halt Assange's extradition, citing fears of treatment amounting to torture. Her concerns echo the broader unease surrounding Assange's potential fate – prolonged solitary confinement and a potentially disproportionate sentence loom large in the shadows.

Six years after the release of Manning's material, Julian Assange faced no prosecution. However, after the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced its intention to use WikiLeaks' content to investigate U.S. officials on war crime allegations, American authorities labeled Assange a "political actor."

During this period, the term "non-state hostile intelligence agency" emerged, associating Assange with accusations of collaboration with Russia and attempting 
to undermine the U.S. The U.S. shielded its officials from ICC jurisdiction, actively intimidating both the ICC and personnel from various states.

One must not forget the core of this tumultuous saga – the information Assange unveiled was not merely a capricious act but a stark revelation of war crimes in the public interest. The offenses for which he is charged are political, a fact that should render him exempt from extradition under the UK-U.S. Extradition Treaty of 2007 and Section 81 of the Extradition Act of 2003.

Moreover, the application of the Espionage Act of 1917, a century-old law, raises eyebrows. This archaic legal tool has never been wielded against publishers before, and Assange's non-American citizenship and absence from the U.S. at the time of the alleged offenses represent a concerning overreach of Washington's judicial arm.

While the judges ponder over the arguments laid before them, the world watches with bated breath. If Assange is extradited, the ramifications are profound. It establishes a perilous precedent where the U.S. government can reach across borders to target publishers and journalists globally for extradition and prosecution. Other nations, watching closely, may also follow the example, suppressing journalistic endeavors that aim to expose inconvenient truths.

Contrary to the Washington Post's official slogan that "Democracy Dies in Darkness," the Assange extradition saga reveals a different narrative. Here, democracy is not succumbing to shadows but withering in plain sight. The potential extradition of Assange serves as a chilling reminder that the pillars of free speech are under siege, and the repercussions of this legal battle will reverberate far beyond the confines of a London courtroom. The question remains: Will democracy emerge stronger, or will it be left to wither, a casualty of its own supposed defenders?

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)