Here’s what experts say about case to extradite Julian Assange to the US

Earlier this week, Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange won a legal bid to appeal against his extradition to the United States where he faces years in prison for leaking documents that showed American abuse of power in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assange’s lawyer has argued that the Australian may be unable to rely on his right to free speech at a potential trial in the U.S.

Assange's supporters say his work is in the public interest, while Washington claims Wikileaks has put its spies at risk.

A price to pay for truth

In 2012, Assange entered the Eucador’s embassy in London, seeking political asylum, after Swedish authorities launch investigation into rape allegations against him. The investigation was later dropped.

Seven years later, Ecuador revoked Assange's asylum, claiming he breached its terms after allegedly hacking information.

Assange was subsequently arrested and detained in the UK while US authorities sought his extradition.

Experts warn the latest development is not a final victory for the Australian who released hundreds of thousands of classified US military documents on Washington's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where tens of thousands of civilians were killed.

Guillaume Long, Ecuador's former foreign minister, says the bid to block his extradition is an important win for Assange.

"Until this latest decision, extradition had been given the green light by British courts. So this is a case about extradition, for journalistic activities, for freedom of expression, for revealing the truth," Long tells TRT World.

US authorities want Assange to face trial for 18 charges, almost all related to the Espionage Act, alleging he’s behind a conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information.

Long explains that Ecuador adhered to international law, deeming Assange "at risk of political persecution" when it decided to give him refuge at the embassy.

Assange was arrested by the UK police in 2019 for not showing up before a court over a warrant issued seven years earlier.

"Assange has been in Belmarsh prison since 2019. That's five years already pending this extradition, and it could easily go on. If the US decides to kick the can down the road and to ignore this issue until the (US) elections are passed, it could be something that happens next year," says Long.

A legal quagmire

In March, the UK High Court gave Assange a temporary reprieve. US authorities were given three weeks to provide assurances he would receive a fair trial, have his First Amendment free speech rights safeguarded and avoid the death penalty.

During Monday's hearing, Assange received permission to appeal.

In court, one of Assange's lawyers questioned the assurances that had been made by US prosecutors, underscoring separation of powers in the country between the executive branch. It would mean the executive branch for prosecuting Assange would be unable to make the judicial branch abide by some aspects.

According to Toby Cadman, a UK-based barrister and co-head of Guernica 37 Chambers, believes it was “inevitable” that the judges were going to grant leave to appeal on that aspect.

Cadman calls the initial ruling "significant" and expects Assange's lawyer to argue his case, although it remains unclear what happens next.

"If they (Assange’s defence) are successful on this particular strand of appeal, then it will be hugely significant for other such cases, but arguably, it's more relevant to Julian Assange because he's not a US citizen whereas, (Edward) Snowden, for example, is," he says.

Assange’s case has a "lot of political significance" for the US President Joe Biden’s administration. It will also show if the US is "softening" its position while seeking "an easy way out” from the complicated legal case.

Australian lawmakers have also lobbied for the US to drop the case against Assange.

Judges will have to consider the arguments made and the time Assange has been detained - something Cadman calls "quite significant."

"These are all matters that will weigh heavily in the mind of the judges sitting in the High Court as to whether it remains justified and a proportionate thing to get him extradited to face these charges. But of course, it does impact upon freedom of expression. But I think that the US has obviously adopted up until now a fairly hard line as far as Assange is concerned," he tells TRT World.

Kevin Gosztola, Author of 'Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case against Julian Assange' says the High Court's decision in Assange's US extradition case is a "roadblock" for the US authorities.

Gosztola, who has spent the last decade reporting on Assange, Wikileaks, and whistleblowers, says it is difficult for anyone that cares about global press freedom to celebrate this as a victory, although it's the first positive court decision for Assange in a long time.

The US push

"US prosecutors at the Justice Department face a dilemma when it comes to proving that Assange's right to freedom of expression will not be violated because foreign nationals do not have First Amendment rights," Gosztola tells TRT World.

"The solution should be to withdraw charges and allow Assange to go free and return to Australia, which has demanded an end to this case," he adds.

While former US President Donald Trump used the Justice Department to pursue charges against Assange, Gosztola says the Biden administration continued to pursue them.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and State Department officials he says want Assange to face trial for "exposing the US to unwanted scrutiny by publishing secret information."

In 2021, the High Court ruled that Assange should be extradited, dismissing reports regarding his mental well-being and risks at a US correctional facility.

A year later, the Supreme Court upheld the decision amid the tenure of then UK Home Secretary Priti Patel, who pushed the order.

It led to a legal tussle as Assange seeks authorisation to scrutinise Patel's assessment and to challenge the initial 2021 court verdict.

For observers like Ecuador's former foreign minister Long, Biden should have had the "wisdom" to see what he says is "the injustice that Mr Assange faces."

Long says a United Nations working group pointed out that Assange was facing arbitrary detention while he was holed up in the embassy for years.

"We could almost call it a policy of revenge for having revealed US war crimes and wrongdoings in the Iraq and Afghanistan war in particular," he says.

Cadman says it is important that the Assange case receives "real consideration." If his extradition is ordered, he says the Australian's case will "inevitably" end up in the European Court of Human Rights.

Several nations in the Global South have also spoken about Assange’s persecution and questioned the US government when it comes to the right to information exposing alleged wrongdoing of its own military.

Wang Wenbin, the spokesman of China's Foreign Ministry, said, "Exposing other countries should be rewarded while exposing the US leads to punishment."

In Latin America, Brazil’s President Lula called for the "persecution" against Assange to cease and for the Australian to be freed.

"The journalist who should have won the Pulitzer Prize for revealing secrets of the powerful has instead been imprisoned for five years in England, condemned to the silence of the entire press that should be defending his freedom as part of the fight for freedom of expression," said Lula.

Long, who also held other positions as Ecuador's Minister of Culture and Minister of Knowledge and Human Talent, insists, "It's a policy of discouraging (and) deterring investigative journalism in general from exposing U.S. war crimes."