WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange has been ordered to face a full extradition hearing next year, despite his legal team calling the charges he faces in the US “an outrageous and full-frontal assault” on journalistic rights.
Assange, 47, is fighting against being extradited from the UK to the US where he faces an 18-count indictment that includes charges under the US Espionage Act. He is accused of conspiracy to hack into a Pentagon computer.
The extradition case was formally opened at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, after an extradition request was signed off by Home Secretary Sajid Javid. Assange, 47, appearing via video link from prison, where he is being held for a bail breach, told the court that “175 years of my life is effectively at stake”.
Mark Summers QC, who represents Assange, stated that there is a “multiplicity of profound issues” with the extradition case, before going on to say that “it represents an outrageous and full-frontal assault on journalistic rights”.
The Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, Emma Arbuthnot, ordered that a five-day court hearing begin on February 25. It also emerged Assange plans to appeal his 50-week bail breach sentence.
Ben Brandon, representing the US, formally opened the case, stating Assange’s alleged actions represented “one of the largest compromises of confidential information in the history of the United States”.
Brandon further alleged that evidence will show that Assange “first encouraged” former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to illegally obtain documents. He then agreed with her to “crack” a password hash on a Pentagon computer, the lawyer continued.
“By taking steps to crack the password hash, it’s said that Mr Assange was also attempting to illegally obtain and receive classified information,” Brandon said.
The documents relate to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and, the lawyer alleged, including information on secret intelligence sources.
Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer representing Assange, said outside court that the US indictment “will place a chilling impact” on journalism and publishers “all over the world”, and stressed the importance of material WikiLeaks published as it included “evidence of war crimes, human rights abuse and corruption the world over”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here