The obvious reservations should be introduced immediately, mainly to reassure those who believe that Assange deserves whatever fate awaits him. He is a self-respecting, self-centered, aspiring witness who ostensibly managed to alienate most people, including many of his early supporters. Some of the latter abandoned him, ironically, after Wikileaks began targeting heroes of the progressive Left such as Hillary Clinton. It was okay while Republican administrations were ashamed of leaking classified material. but when hacked emails from her disastrous 2016 presidential campaign surfaced, many of Assange’s supporters rejected him. Indeed, the Biden government is pursuing extradition with the same determination as its predecessors. They see Assange as an enemy of the state. Proponents of his case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. A journalist, in other words, who exercises freedom of speech. Assange was initially remanded in custody on a European arrest warrant issued by Sweden for rape and three counts of sexual assault. But instead of surrendering to British police, he sought refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy where he remained for eight years. Assange and his supporters said the Swedish warrant was a ploy to detain him, so he would be wanted by the United States for leaking telegrams and diplomatic documents related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sweden has dropped the charges against him and yet faces deportation to the US, suggesting his suspicions were well-founded. Proponents of his case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. While Assange was hiding in the embassy, he set himself above a law that applied to everyone else. But now that the Swedish accusations have been dropped, is he different from a journalist who publishes secret documents that reveal state wrongdoings? The issue is how he came up with the documents and the cavalier approach to their publication. The Americans claim that he conspired with Chelsea Manning, then a US intelligence analyst, to hack a secret Pentagon network for access to confidential material. If a journalist did this in the UK, it would be illegal, although the public interest can be defended, given the outrageous nature of what has been revealed. The Telegraph’s publication of information on MPs’ expenses, contained on a confidential computer disk, is a prime example, although unlike Wikileaks, this newspaper did its best to ensure that certain personal information was kept confidential. Assange has just thrown the lot on the Internet without thinking about the impact his report could have on US agents. But was this espionage, as the Americans claim? There is an undeniable sense that Assange is being punished for removing some of the US military’s horrific activities to stop similar investigations in the future. The government’s consensus on this project is worrying and comes on the eve of the publication today of a British Declaration of Rights that will enshrine the commitment to freedom of speech as one of its central provisions. Dominique Raab, Lord Chancellor, is particularly interested in this part of his new statute. It wants to rebalance the compensatory rights to privacy and freedom of speech under the European Convention, which have fallen too far in favor of the former. He also sees it as an opportunity to stop, or at least slow down, the advance of “austerity” into unknown views. But there is another aspect of freedom of speech, which is to defend the right of journalists to hold the powerful accountable for bad behavior that they would prefer the public not to know. Many people are reluctant to hear this argument and believe that the media, and certainly people like Assange, are very intrusive, exercising power irresponsibly, as Baldwin put it. But the idea that our courts could be used for a power of attorney against a disturbing exponent of miserable state activities should be of concern to anyone who wants to live in a free country. This case again raises questions about the balance of power in the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the UK and the US. The family of Harry Dan, the teenage motorcyclist who was killed in a collision with a car allegedly driven by Ann Sakoulas, an American woman seeking diplomatic immunity to avoid extradition, is angry at what they see as a lack of reciprocity. In the Commonwealth a few months ago, Boris Johnson acknowledged that elements of the extradition relationship between Britain and the United States were “unbalanced”, although he insisted that diplomatic immunity was a separate issue. Of course, Americans are entitled to request extradition if their national security is endangered by an illegal activity that is not covered by the protection of the public interest. But we should have the right to say no if we suspect that this is more of a political witch hunt than a criminal case. The proper procedure was followed. The lower courts accepted that Assange had a prima facie case, but rejected the US request on the grounds that his mental health had deteriorated and that he would risk committing suicide in an American prison, especially if he ended up in solitary confinement. The refusal was overturned by the Supreme Court and its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. But the epic is not over yet. Following Mrs Patel’s decision, another appeal has been lodged. The day a new Declaration of Rights emerges, 334 years after its namesake – one of the founding documents of the American Republic – promised to defend the freedoms of the people against a powerful state, we must ask ourselves if any of the this is fair or just.
