The US has had years to clarify its intention to give Assange a fair trial but refuses to do so. The UK court's latest ruling is yet more collusion in his show trial
Thank you for your email and I am sorry for not writing back sooner but the last few weeks have been very busy.
In my view, the Julian Assange case is yet another example of the urgent need to overhaul extradition laws, especially in relation to the imbalanced influence of the US in such matters.
Since first being elected as your MP, I have been campaigning for a review of the UK's extradition treaty with the US and was instrumental in securing a parliamentary debate and positive vote, at the end of last year, for a motion which calls on the Government to reform the UK's extradition arrangements to strengthen the protection of British citizens. You can read my contribution to the debate here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111205/debtext/111205-0003.htm#11120537000333 Although I focussed on Baber Ahmed's case - his family approached me to ask me to act as an advocate for him - many of the points are applicable to other similar cases too.
I have followed up on the debate with correspondence urging the Government to review the extradition laws as soon as possible and, although this process is too late for many, I still believe there are strong grounds for political action. As you may know, various committee reports have added to the pressure on the Government so I raised the issue again with the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question recently as follows:
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): In December last year, this House passed a motion calling for a Bill to make urgent reforms to our deeply unfair extradition treaties. Nearly seven months later, there has been no Bill and no action. What makes the Prime Minister more uncomfortable: ignoring the will of the House for months on end or the plight of those facing imminent extradition?
The Prime Minister: We held the Scott Baker review, which looked carefully at the extradition arrangements. The hon. Lady should of course look at some of the cases that have caused concern, but I urge her to look also at the overall figures, which show that we are benefiting by being able to extradite people who have committed serious crimes from the US back to the UK. We continue to look at this issue. We will ensure that we do the right thing for our country, but people should not think that it is a very simple issue, because it is not.
His reply is incredibly disappointing and whilst the Home Secretary's latest statement suggests some movement, it is still unacceptable that British citizens are at risk of potential breaches of their human rights. As you point out, Julian Assange's treatment does not recognise the wider context either - in this case the benefits of the activities undertaken by Wikileaks. Whilst I agree that there are undoubtedly benefits, and you mention the Bradley Manning example as one, it is my firm belief that extradition decisions not be subject to political influence, so I am pleased that the Government intends to act on the Scott Baker recommendation that the Home Secretary's involvement in extradition cases should be reduced.
Thank you for writing to me and for your support and please be assured I will continue to do what I can to campaign for a change in the law. Do let me know if you need any further information.
Thank you for your further email and I am sorry that you do not feel I have been proactive enough on this issue. I agree that it’s a very important one and maintain that trying to change the extradition laws and the terms of the European Arrest Warrant is critical. There have been a number of key parliamentary debates on these subjects and the case of Edward Snowden has also been discussed.
During the debate about Prism I put a question to the Minister as follows:
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Given that EU data protection laws currently offer no protection against backdoor US surveillance of this sort, will the Foreign Secretary commit to pushing for stronger measures in the current EU proposals, or does he agree with the Justice Secretary, who is reported to have said that plans to strengthen protections for UK citizens and businesses from such unwarranted spying are “mad”?
Mr Hague: I think that the hon. Lady might be quoting the Justice Secretary slightly out of context, in that he will have been referring to other aspects of the proposals. I cannot give her any guarantee that these controversies make it easier to agree proposals for EU directives, but I will go with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary on these matters.
I’ll certainly continue to do what I can to raise these issues in Parliament and to champion strong protection for whistleblowers like Assange, Snowden and others.
Revisiting the situation outlined by Jonathan Cook regarding Julian Assange, we see a complex intersection of legal, ethical, and procedural challenges. To prevent similar plights from happening in the future, both systemic reforms and a recalibration of how current laws are applied may be necessary. The goal would be to uphold the principles of justice, transparency, and human rights, even in cases that touch on national security and international relations. Here are several areas where changes could be considered:
### 1. **Extradition Laws and Political Offenses**
- **Clarification and Reform**: Extradition treaties often include clauses that prohibit extradition for political offenses. However, the interpretation of what constitutes a "political offense" can be ambiguous. Clarifying this in legal terms and ensuring that these clauses are robustly applied could protect individuals engaged in journalistic or whistleblowing activities that are politically sensitive but crucial for democratic accountability.
### 2. **Transparency in Legal Proceedings**
- **Public Interest Defense**: Legal systems could formally recognize and strengthen the public interest defense in cases involving the publication of classified information. This would allow defendants like Assange to argue that their actions, while technically in breach of certain laws, served a greater public good by exposing wrongdoing.
- **Openness and Transparency**: Ensuring greater transparency in legal proceedings, especially in cases with significant public interest or international implications, could help prevent misapplications of the law and enhance public trust in the judicial process.
### 3. **Protection for Journalists and Whistleblowers**
- **Legal Protections**: Strengthening legal protections for journalists, whistleblowers, and others who expose wrongdoing is crucial. This could include better shielding from prosecution under espionage or similar laws when their work is in the public interest.
- **International Safeguards**: Developing and enforcing international safeguards and protocols for the protection of journalists and whistleblowers could provide a buffer against national jurisdictions seeking to suppress critical voices under the guise of legal action.
### 4. **Review and Reform of Espionage Laws**
- **Modernization and Specificity**: Many espionage laws, like the Espionage Act in the United States, are broad and can be applied in a wide range of circumstances, some of which may unjustly ensnare journalists and activists. Reviewing these laws to ensure they are specific, modern, and do not unduly criminalize the necessary acts of journalism or whistleblowing is vital.
- **Balancing Act**: Reforming espionage and related laws to better balance national security interests with the public's right to know and freedom of the press could help prevent future misapplications of these laws.
### 5. **International Dialogue and Cooperation**
- **International Standards**: Promoting dialogue and cooperation to establish or reinforce international standards and protections for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to information. This includes diplomatic efforts to encourage countries to commit to not prosecuting journalists and whistleblowers for exposing important information.
### 6. **Mental Health and Human Rights in Detention**
- **Enhanced Oversight**: Implementing stronger oversight mechanisms to ensure that the treatment of detainees, especially those held for extended periods pre-trial, meets international human rights standards. This includes regular, independent monitoring of their mental and physical well-being.
### Conclusion
The Assange case highlights deep-seated issues within both the application of current laws and the need for systemic legal reforms. While no single change can address all potential future plights, a combination of the above measures could significantly mitigate the risk of similar situations arising. Ensuring that legal frameworks evolve to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, especially in the context of the complex interplay between national security and freedom of expression, is paramount.
If one needed another reminder of how silly the phrase "free world " is then look upon the plight of Julian Assange, in the West we often hear this phrase to describe "our" sphere of the planet as if its the preserve of some higher moral code where all and sundry receives full measure of true justice, unlike those other parts of the world, wherein some shoddy form of "justice "is meted out, that is but a shadow, indeed an insult to that which we not only value but readily implement with equal measure to all who seek it. Alas, the truth is so very different to image we hold up, and Assange is the living proof of it.
Thank you Jonathan for this detour from your essential reporting on the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Your words add greatly to those of Craig Murray who has been tirelessly keeping the story of Julian’s plight on the front burner. Blessings on you both!
Utterly disgraceful. His wife and children are suffering unnecessarily and he is being kept in a state of stress and tension that would have destroyed a lesser man. He is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with our judicial system, the relationship between the power elites in Washington and London, and the moral cowardice of our so-called free press.
Utterly disgraceful. His wife and children are suffering unnecessarily and he is being kept in a state of stress and tension that would have destroyed a lesser man. He is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with our judicial system, the relationship between the power elites in Washington and London, and the moral cowardice of our so-called free press.
This case really upsets me when I let it, the tactics used just one of many examples of the psychological torture enacted by our criminal class against us - to crush the human spirit.
I can't imagine what Assange's family is going through.
The ruling asks the US not to 'deny Assange his basic free speech rights.' Since he is classified by the US as a spy under the Espionage Act, why would the UK ask the US to guarantee his free speech rights? So it seems the US is being asked to consider him as a journalist not a spy, which is contrary to what the US accuse him of being.
Of course none of this would be happening if the UK was not a cliente/subservient state. He’s a political prisoner in Super High security Belmarsh otherwise he’d be at home on bail whilst fighting his case. The snail’s pace of the process is the revenge the us requires (and enjoys) and a warning to others, if they eventually get hold of him that’s a bonus for them.
Agree completely with your take on this cruel Kafkaesque farce, one that shows utterly clearly that out-and-out sociopaths are in charge of both UK and US. The sooner each government is overgrown the better. How about yesterday?
Scary summary and prescient prediction of disappearing a revolutionary publisher for exposing the war crimes of the empire that’s turned into, like everything else, the crime of journalism.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:02 PM, LUCAS, Caroline <caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk> wrote:
Ref: CL.EB.N0095.CM.02.11.12
Dear Edmund,
Thank you for your email and I am sorry for not writing back sooner but the last few weeks have been very busy.
In my view, the Julian Assange case is yet another example of the urgent need to overhaul extradition laws, especially in relation to the imbalanced influence of the US in such matters.
Since first being elected as your MP, I have been campaigning for a review of the UK's extradition treaty with the US and was instrumental in securing a parliamentary debate and positive vote, at the end of last year, for a motion which calls on the Government to reform the UK's extradition arrangements to strengthen the protection of British citizens. You can read my contribution to the debate here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111205/debtext/111205-0003.htm#11120537000333 Although I focussed on Baber Ahmed's case - his family approached me to ask me to act as an advocate for him - many of the points are applicable to other similar cases too.
I have followed up on the debate with correspondence urging the Government to review the extradition laws as soon as possible and, although this process is too late for many, I still believe there are strong grounds for political action. As you may know, various committee reports have added to the pressure on the Government so I raised the issue again with the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question recently as follows:
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): In December last year, this House passed a motion calling for a Bill to make urgent reforms to our deeply unfair extradition treaties. Nearly seven months later, there has been no Bill and no action. What makes the Prime Minister more uncomfortable: ignoring the will of the House for months on end or the plight of those facing imminent extradition?
The Prime Minister: We held the Scott Baker review, which looked carefully at the extradition arrangements. The hon. Lady should of course look at some of the cases that have caused concern, but I urge her to look also at the overall figures, which show that we are benefiting by being able to extradite people who have committed serious crimes from the US back to the UK. We continue to look at this issue. We will ensure that we do the right thing for our country, but people should not think that it is a very simple issue, because it is not.
His reply is incredibly disappointing and whilst the Home Secretary's latest statement suggests some movement, it is still unacceptable that British citizens are at risk of potential breaches of their human rights. As you point out, Julian Assange's treatment does not recognise the wider context either - in this case the benefits of the activities undertaken by Wikileaks. Whilst I agree that there are undoubtedly benefits, and you mention the Bradley Manning example as one, it is my firm belief that extradition decisions not be subject to political influence, so I am pleased that the Government intends to act on the Scott Baker recommendation that the Home Secretary's involvement in extradition cases should be reduced.
Thank you for writing to me and for your support and please be assured I will continue to do what I can to campaign for a change in the law. Do let me know if you need any further information.
Best wishes,
Caroline
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 7025
Email: caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk
From: LUCAS, Caroline <caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 at 05:33
Subject: RE: Your ref: CL.EB.N0095.CM.02.11.12
To: Edmund Broadley
Ref: CL.EB.N0095.CM.11.07.13
Dear Edmund,
Thank you for your further email and I am sorry that you do not feel I have been proactive enough on this issue. I agree that it’s a very important one and maintain that trying to change the extradition laws and the terms of the European Arrest Warrant is critical. There have been a number of key parliamentary debates on these subjects and the case of Edward Snowden has also been discussed.
During the debate about Prism I put a question to the Minister as follows:
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Given that EU data protection laws currently offer no protection against backdoor US surveillance of this sort, will the Foreign Secretary commit to pushing for stronger measures in the current EU proposals, or does he agree with the Justice Secretary, who is reported to have said that plans to strengthen protections for UK citizens and businesses from such unwarranted spying are “mad”?
Mr Hague: I think that the hon. Lady might be quoting the Justice Secretary slightly out of context, in that he will have been referring to other aspects of the proposals. I cannot give her any guarantee that these controversies make it easier to agree proposals for EU directives, but I will go with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary on these matters.
With specific reference to protecting Mr Snowden as a whistleblower, the Green Party’s response, calling on the EU to guarantee his safety, is here: http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/07/05/eu-has-an-obligation-to-arrange-a-safe-haven-for-edward-snowden/
I’ll certainly continue to do what I can to raise these issues in Parliament and to champion strong protection for whistleblowers like Assange, Snowden and others.
Best wishes, Caroline
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 7025
Email: caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk
ChatGPT's analysis...
Revisiting the situation outlined by Jonathan Cook regarding Julian Assange, we see a complex intersection of legal, ethical, and procedural challenges. To prevent similar plights from happening in the future, both systemic reforms and a recalibration of how current laws are applied may be necessary. The goal would be to uphold the principles of justice, transparency, and human rights, even in cases that touch on national security and international relations. Here are several areas where changes could be considered:
### 1. **Extradition Laws and Political Offenses**
- **Clarification and Reform**: Extradition treaties often include clauses that prohibit extradition for political offenses. However, the interpretation of what constitutes a "political offense" can be ambiguous. Clarifying this in legal terms and ensuring that these clauses are robustly applied could protect individuals engaged in journalistic or whistleblowing activities that are politically sensitive but crucial for democratic accountability.
### 2. **Transparency in Legal Proceedings**
- **Public Interest Defense**: Legal systems could formally recognize and strengthen the public interest defense in cases involving the publication of classified information. This would allow defendants like Assange to argue that their actions, while technically in breach of certain laws, served a greater public good by exposing wrongdoing.
- **Openness and Transparency**: Ensuring greater transparency in legal proceedings, especially in cases with significant public interest or international implications, could help prevent misapplications of the law and enhance public trust in the judicial process.
### 3. **Protection for Journalists and Whistleblowers**
- **Legal Protections**: Strengthening legal protections for journalists, whistleblowers, and others who expose wrongdoing is crucial. This could include better shielding from prosecution under espionage or similar laws when their work is in the public interest.
- **International Safeguards**: Developing and enforcing international safeguards and protocols for the protection of journalists and whistleblowers could provide a buffer against national jurisdictions seeking to suppress critical voices under the guise of legal action.
### 4. **Review and Reform of Espionage Laws**
- **Modernization and Specificity**: Many espionage laws, like the Espionage Act in the United States, are broad and can be applied in a wide range of circumstances, some of which may unjustly ensnare journalists and activists. Reviewing these laws to ensure they are specific, modern, and do not unduly criminalize the necessary acts of journalism or whistleblowing is vital.
- **Balancing Act**: Reforming espionage and related laws to better balance national security interests with the public's right to know and freedom of the press could help prevent future misapplications of these laws.
### 5. **International Dialogue and Cooperation**
- **International Standards**: Promoting dialogue and cooperation to establish or reinforce international standards and protections for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to information. This includes diplomatic efforts to encourage countries to commit to not prosecuting journalists and whistleblowers for exposing important information.
### 6. **Mental Health and Human Rights in Detention**
- **Enhanced Oversight**: Implementing stronger oversight mechanisms to ensure that the treatment of detainees, especially those held for extended periods pre-trial, meets international human rights standards. This includes regular, independent monitoring of their mental and physical well-being.
### Conclusion
The Assange case highlights deep-seated issues within both the application of current laws and the need for systemic legal reforms. While no single change can address all potential future plights, a combination of the above measures could significantly mitigate the risk of similar situations arising. Ensuring that legal frameworks evolve to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, especially in the context of the complex interplay between national security and freedom of expression, is paramount.
Yes , and aren’t the parrelells so obvious in what is happening for a ceasefire too .
If one needed another reminder of how silly the phrase "free world " is then look upon the plight of Julian Assange, in the West we often hear this phrase to describe "our" sphere of the planet as if its the preserve of some higher moral code where all and sundry receives full measure of true justice, unlike those other parts of the world, wherein some shoddy form of "justice "is meted out, that is but a shadow, indeed an insult to that which we not only value but readily implement with equal measure to all who seek it. Alas, the truth is so very different to image we hold up, and Assange is the living proof of it.
Thank you Jonathan for this detour from your essential reporting on the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Your words add greatly to those of Craig Murray who has been tirelessly keeping the story of Julian’s plight on the front burner. Blessings on you both!
Outrageous treatment of a man who exposed the truth. Shameful lack of outrage from mainstream journalists.
Outrageou treatment of a man who exposed the truth. Shameful lack of outrage from mainstream journalists.
Utterly disgraceful. His wife and children are suffering unnecessarily and he is being kept in a state of stress and tension that would have destroyed a lesser man. He is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with our judicial system, the relationship between the power elites in Washington and London, and the moral cowardice of our so-called free press.
Utterly disgraceful. His wife and children are suffering unnecessarily and he is being kept in a state of stress and tension that would have destroyed a lesser man. He is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with our judicial system, the relationship between the power elites in Washington and London, and the moral cowardice of our so-called free press.
This case really upsets me when I let it, the tactics used just one of many examples of the psychological torture enacted by our criminal class against us - to crush the human spirit.
I can't imagine what Assange's family is going through.
Free poor Assange, he has suffered like no one else!
https://liborsoural.substack.com/p/suffer-well
https://liborsoural.substack.com/p/love-in-search-of-the-antidote
The ruling asks the US not to 'deny Assange his basic free speech rights.' Since he is classified by the US as a spy under the Espionage Act, why would the UK ask the US to guarantee his free speech rights? So it seems the US is being asked to consider him as a journalist not a spy, which is contrary to what the US accuse him of being.
Of course none of this would be happening if the UK was not a cliente/subservient state. He’s a political prisoner in Super High security Belmarsh otherwise he’d be at home on bail whilst fighting his case. The snail’s pace of the process is the revenge the us requires (and enjoys) and a warning to others, if they eventually get hold of him that’s a bonus for them.
Stay strong Julian and Stella✊🏼
Brutish justice...as developed over the centuries against it's imperia£ untermenschen, comes home.
Kafka would recognise the beast.
Agree completely with your take on this cruel Kafkaesque farce, one that shows utterly clearly that out-and-out sociopaths are in charge of both UK and US. The sooner each government is overgrown the better. How about yesterday?
Scary summary and prescient prediction of disappearing a revolutionary publisher for exposing the war crimes of the empire that’s turned into, like everything else, the crime of journalism.