The US seeks to unblock the extradition of Assange to try him

USA has returned to the British courts to achieve the extradition from Julian Assange, currently incarcerated in Belmarsh High Security Prison in London. Lawyers representing the authorities of Washington They are trying to overturn the decision blocking the lawsuit and have submitted a new offer in compromise on the future treatment that the founder of Wikileaks.

In the first of the two days that the process will last in the High Court of the British capital, the lawyers showed a legal document according to which the US agrees not to impose Assange lockdown solo before and after the trial on the other side of the Atlantic. The convicted person may request to comply with the pity that is imposed on you in your country of origin, Australia that like the US will accept the request. The prison authorities will ensure that you will receive “clinical and psychological treatment” recommended by the prison doctors. Lastly, Assange is guaranteed not to be sent to ADX Florence, the isolation prison where the most dangerous condemned are found.

Psychiatric report disputed

The new hearing takes place after the British magistrate Vanessa Baraitser opposed the extradition request in January given the poor state of mental health and the suicide risk from the founder of WikiLeaks. The lawyer James Lewis, on behalf of the United States, indicated to the judge Timothy Holroyde that the sentence is wrong. Lewis questions the reliability of the expert’s report, the psychiatrist Michael Kopelman, who testified in favor of Assange. Kopelman acknowledged having hidden from justice the fact that the Australian had fathered two children with the lawyer Stella Moris, during his confinement in the embassy of Ecuador in the British capital. This Thursday the defense lawyers will justify the omission for security reasons. Last month an investigation by Yahoo News revealed, without being able to verify, that The US was weighing the possibility of kidnapping or assassinating Assange.

The defense will again ask for the closure of the case and the immediate release of the inmate, the victim of a conspiracy to punish him for exposing the crimes committed by the United States to the world. He did it when he was carrying out his duties as journalist, by publishing hundreds of thousands of secret and highly compromising documents on the military activities of the US and allied forces in Afghanistan e Iraq. The judgment of Judge Baraitser, however, gave the reason to the arguments put forward by Washington and indicated that according to the norms of that country, what was done by WikiLeaks could constitute a crime against the laws that protect the secret services and national security. Three different administrations, that of Barak Obama, Donald Trump and now that of Joe Biden, have continued with the demand.

Investigative journalism in danger

International organizations such as Reporters Without Borders O International Amnesty They demand the closure of the case and freedom for Assange. On a whole page of the newspaper ‘The Times’ where it was written “the journalism is not a crime & rdquor ;, the International Federation of Journalists affirmed that “the freedom of media is suffering lasting damage from the continued persecution of Julian Assange & rdquor ;. The conviction of the WikiLeaks founder threatens all investigative journalism and opens the door for its authors to be prosecuted anywhere in the world.

Related news

Assange is accused of trying to access the computers of the Pentagon and 17 counts of espionage for receiving and posting classified documents. WikiLeaks posted 250,000 diplomatic cables and nearly half a million US military reports online. The documents included the authentic names of the people involved and from multiple confidential sources, putting the informants in danger.

The new process, whatever the result, will not be the last chapter in the judicial saga that Assange has been leading for eleven years. More appeals are likely and the dispute will end in the Supreme Court.