By Aaron Miller-
The United States has offered assurances to the high court in London in a bid to thwart the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange’s final attempt to appeal against extradition.
However, Assange’s wife has swiftly dismissed these assurances as “weasel words,” intensifying the legal and diplomatic standoff.
Last month, two judges deferred a crucial decision on Assange’s appeal, stipulating that he could proceed with his appeal only if the Biden administration failed to provide satisfactory assurances.
These assurances included guarantees that Assange would be able to rely on the First Amendment, receive fair treatment at trial, and be spared from the death penalty.
Details of the assurances provided by the U.S have now emerged, indicating that Assange “will not be prejudiced by reason of his nationality” and affirming his ability to invoke the First Amendment.
The assurances also asserted that the applicability of the First Amendment is solely within the jurisdiction of US courts, sparking concerns about the adequacy of these guarantees.
Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, expressed dismay over the US assurances, criticizing them as insufficient to address the fundamental issues at stake.
She highlighted the absence of a commitment to withdraw the prosecution’s assertion that Assange lacks First Amendment rights due to his non-U.S citizenship, casting doubt on the sincerity of the US’s pledge.
The impending high court hearing, scheduled for 20 May, will witness intense scrutiny of the validity and effectiveness of the US assurances.
Assange’s legal team, echoing concerns raised by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, has previously questioned the credibility of assurances provided by the US in extradition cases.
While the Biden administration’s recent acknowledgment of considering a request from Australia to drop charges against Assange offered a glimmer of hope, Stella Assange remains steadfast in urging for the abandonment of what she deems a “dangerous prosecution” that threatens her husband’s journalistic freedom.