Julian Assange's wife has called on protesters to march on Downing Street as her husband was today accused of “putting lives at risk” with his WikiLeaks revelations.
Assange is fighting tooth and nail to avoid extradition to the United States, where he faces espionage charges after hundreds of thousands of secret files related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were leaked online.
In an impassioned speech to the Supreme Court on the final day of his appeal hearing, the 52-year-old's wife, Stella Assange, accused the White House of “lying” about her husband in order to “criminalize journalism.”
During a political broadside against the American authorities, the 40-year-old lawyer said that the US prosecution of her husband had shown that “state secrets are more important than the detection of state crimes.”
Cheered by supporters outside the court, Ms Assange said: “However pathetic the US case is, they have to rely on lies – and then the prosecutors say we shouldn't question those lies because that would offend our ally.”
Stella Assange accused the White House of “lying” about her husband in order to “criminalize” journalism.
Ms Assange, who is married to WikiLeaks founder Julian, spoke to supporters on Wednesday – as she urged them to march through Downing Street in protest
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gestures from the window of a prison van as he is evicted from Southwark Crown Court in London on May 1, 2019
“Fourteen years later, all they can do is repeat the lies from the talking sheet of the very first Pentagon press conference.”
“What they want to argue is that state secrets are more important than exposing state crimes.” That is the balance they are trying to shift.
“They want impunity, they don’t want to be investigated and journalism stands in their way.” [of that].
“In this courtroom they must state their position more and more clearly.” They must admit that they are criminalizing journalism – criminalizing the truth.
“They are liars, they are criminals and they are going after the journalist who exposed them.”
Her comments came as the second and final day of Assange's appeal against extradition to the US nears its conclusion.
The Australian was charged with 17 counts of espionage and one count of computer misuse for posting classified US documents on his website almost 15 years ago. His lawyers say he faces up to 175 prison sentences, meaning he would likely die behind bars if extradited to the U.S. and convicted.
If his latest appeal fails, he will be extradited within a month – unless his legal team can persuade the European Court of Human Rights to intervene.
Ms Assange claimed American authorities were trying to argue that “state secrets are more important than exposing state crimes” and accused the White House of lying
Hundreds of protesters staged a rally outside London's High Court on Tuesday in support of Assange
Assange's wife Stella also attended the rally on Tuesday and gave an impassioned speech demanding her husband's “freedom.”
In a January 2021 ruling, then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser said Assange should not be sent to America because there was a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide, while ruling against him on all other issues.
But later that year, US authorities won a Supreme Court bid to lift that block, paving the way for Assange's extradition.
The 52-year-old's lawyers are now asking the Supreme Court to grant him a new appeal – his final legal roll of the dice in the long-running legal saga that has kept him locked up in Belmarsh maximum security prison in southeast London for the past five years.
American prosecutors say Assange helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, endangering lives in the process.
US authorities are rejecting the WikiLeaks founder's appeal, telling the court his case is “indisputable” and should not be allowed to go to a full hearing.
Opening arguments on behalf of the US on Wednesday, Clair Dobbin KC said plans to extradite and prosecute Assange were based on his alleged actions and not his political views.
She told the Supreme Court that Assange was facing allegations that he encouraged and helped Manning obtain classified documents, including around 400,000 reports on war activities in Iraq and 250,000 US State Department cables, before releasing many of them through WikiLeaks .
The secret files detailed aspects of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as secret cables about Guantanamo Bay.
This included the infamous “Collateral Murder” video, which showed the killing of 11 civilians by an American Apache helicopter crew in July 2007, including Portal journalists Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and Saeed Chmagh, 40.
Protesters pictured outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday to mark the second day of Assange's hearing
The Wikileaks founder appears in court for a two-day hearing that will determine whether he will be extradited to the US
Video captured by the helicopter scope showed the helicopter crew firing on a group of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad after receiving permission from a commanding officer, killing 11 men and seriously wounding two children.
Ms Dobbin said there had been “profound consequences” as some of the sources named in the documents who had provided information to the US faced arrests, forfeiture of assets, threats and harassment.
“This was not a slip or error, it was the publication of a huge amount of unedited material,” she said.
In written statements, Ms. Dobbin and James Lewis KC called the leak “one of the largest compromises of classified information in United States history.”
They continued: “The complainant is specifically alleged that, by publishing this information on the WikiLeaks website, he created a serious and imminent risk that the human sources named therein would suffer serious physical harm.”
US authorities have denied that the decision to extradite or prosecute Assange was based on his political views.
Ms Dobbin said: “The government in the US has of course changed during these proceedings… but the prosecution of the complainant nonetheless remains ongoing.”
“Because it is based on law and evidence, not political inspiration.”
On the first day of the hearing on Tuesday, Mark Summers KC argued that the US prosecution of Assange was in retaliation for his political views, meaning it would be unlawful under British law to extradite him.
Protesters from Australia took part in the demonstration outside the London Court on Tuesday
Hundreds of protesters were seen supporting Assange at a rally outside the Supreme Court
He said: “This is a prime example of government retaliation for expressing political opinions.”
“The district judge did not address this – if she had it would have been fatal to her decision.”
The lawyer later said that the original judge had “completely rejected” that Assange should be treated like a journalist, “otherwise what he did could fall within the scope of responsible journalism.”
Assange's lawyers argued on the first day of the hearing on Tuesday that American authorities were trying to punish him because WikiLeaks had “exposed criminality by the US government on an unprecedented scale,” including torture and killings.
Lawyer Edward Fitzgerald KC said Assange “could suffer a blatant denial of justice” if sent to America.
Mr Fitzgerald KC told the Supreme Court on the opening day of his appeal hearing that his extradition for “purely political offenses” was illegal and “the Secretary of State should have refused to authorize the extradition”.
He said the decision violated Article 4 of the 2003 Anglo-American Extradition Treaty, which prohibits extradition for political reasons.
“The offenses with which Mr. Assange is charged are all 'political offenses', the extradition of which is strictly prohibited under Article 4(1) of the Treaty,” the lawyer told the Supreme Court.
The Australian's legal team also accused American authorities of attempting a “breathtaking” plan to “kill” or kidnap the WikiLeaks founder while he was at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Mark Summers KC said that the plot “only failed when the British authorities were not keen on a rendition or a shootout on the streets of London”.
Ms Assange spoke to protesters outside the court after earlier warning that her husband would “die” if extradited to the US
Julian Assange, who faces espionage charges and up to 175 years in prison, pictured with his wife Stella
A huge crowd of supporters could be seen outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning
The lawyer argued that the US prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder was retaliation for his political views – which he said would make his extradition unlawful – and that there were “red flags” throughout the case.
His legal team claimed the espionage charges against him were an unprecedented attempt by Washington to “criminalize journalism” in retaliation for Wikileaks' publication of the leaked documents.
But Clair Dobbin, KC, on behalf of the US, claimed that the district judge who originally heard Assange's extradition case had rejected the idea that he was a journalist practicing “responsible journalism.”
She said: “The district judge had firmly rejected that the appellant should be treated as a journalist or similar to a journalist or publisher, or that what he did could fall within the scope of responsible journalism.”
She claimed that Assange had “explicitly” requested classified material from others to be published on the WikiLeaks website, rather than simply being a passive recipient of it.
Ms Dobbin added: “He is not a receiver. “He is not someone who has set up an online box for people to pass on sensitive information to.”
She said Manning, who had given Assange “four almost complete databases” containing hundreds of thousands of documents, responded to that request when she handed him the information.
“Ms. Manning was in direct contact with the complainant, who encouraged her to steal the classified information from the United States and unlawfully disclose it to WikiLeaks,” the lawyer added.
She also said Assange went further when he “agreed to help Manning crack an encrypted password hash stored on US Department of Defense computers” to gain access to further classified information.
As a result, Assange was “unable to claim that he was an ordinary journalist or, in the WikiLeaks sense, an ordinary publisher, or that he was behaving in such a manner.”
On Wednesday, dozens of people gathered outside the Supreme Court for the second day of hearings
Hundreds of people gathered outside the court to show their support for the Wikileaks founder
Ms Assange spoke to protesters outside the court after earlier warning that her husband would “die” if extradited to the US
His “complicity” in the theft of information went beyond Ms. Manning.
“Since he founded WikiLeaks, he and others have attempted to recruit individuals with access to classified information to unlawfully disclose that information to WikiLeaks,” the attorney said.
She added that even after Manning's arrest, he continued to try to recruit people to hack systems and provide information.
Ms. Dobbin disputed whether Manning was a whistleblower, saying that notion “fails to realistically consider what she was accused of doing, which was in response to WikiLeaks' efforts to obtain disclosure.”
She said Manning “did not give rational thought to the specific disclosure or the specific issues she wanted to address” and that she shared material indiscriminately in bulk.
Ms Dobbin claimed this called into question the argument made by Assange's lawyers yesterday that extradition would breach his European Convention on Human Rights [EHCR] Article 10 Rights protecting a person's freedom of expression.
The campaign, pictured on Wednesday, shows its poster calling for Assange's release
Another supporter appeared in court on Wednesday armed with large signs calling him a hero
Stella Assange arrives in court surrounded by police on the second day of her husband Julian's hearing
“To the extent that the applicant argues that extradition would expose him to a violation of his Article 10 rights simply because he was supporting a whistleblower or acting like a journalist, this may be based on a misrepresentation of the basis on which the applicant is acting prosecuted.'
Assange also knowingly published material containing people's names when he unredacted around 250,000 U.S. State Department cables in 2011, and he knew this would put people at risk, the lawyer claimed.
The 52-year-old was not in court on Tuesday because he was unwell, his lawyer said. Stella Assange, his wife, said Julian had wanted to attend but was “not in good condition.”
Assange's family and supporters say his physical and mental health has suffered during more than a decade of legal battles, including seven years in self-exile in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and the last five years in a maximum security prison on the outskirts of the British capital.
Stella Assange, who married the WikiLeaks founder in prison in 2022, said last week that his health had deteriorated during his years in prison and “if he is extradited, he will die.”
Supporters held signs reading “Freedom for Julian Assange” and chanted “There is only one decision – no extradition” and loudly protested outside the neo-Gothic Supreme Court building for a second day on Wednesday.
Assange, 52, faces up to 175 years in prison for espionage – meaning if he were extradited and convicted, he would likely die behind bars.
Assange's legal troubles began in 2010 when he was arrested in London at the request of Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual assault by two women. In 2012, Assange jumped bail and sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
The relationship between Assange and his hosts eventually deteriorated, and he was expelled from the embassy in April 2019. British police immediately arrested him and jailed him for breaching bail in 2012. Sweden stopped investigating sex crimes in November 2019 because too much time had passed.
A British district court judge rejected the U.S. extradition request in 2021, saying Assange would likely commit suicide if held in harsh U.S. prison conditions. Higher courts overturned that decision after receiving assurances from the U.S. regarding his treatment. The British government signed an extradition order in June 2022.
Meanwhile, the Australian Parliament last week demanded that Assange be allowed to return to his home country.
If judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson rule against Assange, he can ask the European Court of Human Rights to block his extradition – although advocates fear he could be put on a plane to the US before then, since the British government has already requested extradition signed extradition order.
The two justices could issue a ruling at the end of Wednesday's hearing, but it is more likely they will need several weeks to consider their decision.