Day 2 of 2 Day Hearing to Allow Julian Assange to Move Forward with His Appeal in the UK Courts

During a hearing at the British High Court of Justice, the United States government responded to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s request for an appeal by explicitly and forcefully arguing that Assange was no “ordinary journalist” who deserved human rights protections.

Lawyers supporting extradition repeated the questionable assertion that the extradition treaty between the U.S. and the United Kingdom does not protect anyone from being extradited to America for “political offenses,” like “espionage.”

Julian Assange Protestors Photo by Mohamed Elmaazi

Regarding Julian Assange's adjudication status for U.S. alleged crimes related to Wikileak's publishing U.S. government whistleblower's disclosures of U.S. government war crimes, it's been over three years since U.K.'s District Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s extradition decision was issued in January 2021. Baraitser actually rejected the U.S. government's demand for Assange's extradition on the basis that there was a “substantial risk” of suicide if Assange was subjected to U.S. jail or prison conditions. However, in 2021 Baraister also rejected all of Assange’s other arguments against extradition. 

February 20, 2024 Assange's legal defense team Barristers Mark Summers KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC presented in the U.K. appeals court seven grounds for challenging the ruling.

If the High Court accepts some or all of the appeal grounds as being at least “arguable” they will set a future date for Assange’s appeal to be heard. But if the High Court judges reject the defense arguments, Assange will have exhausted all of his domestic avenues of appeal.

Crimes exposed by the WikiLeaks publications that are central to this case include “torture,” “[extraordinary] rendition,” and “drone strikes” that killed scores of civilians.