An unexpected glimmer of hope – Dagsavisen

In recent years, the treatment of Julian Assange has been a source of distrust in Western societies. The Wikileaks chief who exposed and exposed Western war crimes in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been isolated and imprisoned for 12 years – while those responsible for the crimes he uncovered go free. And an extradition to the United States has threatened in the background all along.

Time and again, legal decisions in the UK, where Assange has now spent five years in the high-risk Belmarsh prison after living in refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years, have gone against Assange. Earlier this winter it looked as if all hope was lost and extradition to the US was the next step.

This does something to the trust in the process against Assange – and in our authorities.

In the US, charges under The Espionage Act, i.e. for espionage, and potentially 175 years (!) in prison await – or worse.

At Easter, there was an unexpected glimmer of hope. Then the British High Court upheld Assange on three points in the appeal against extradition to the United States. It concerns, among other things, a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ article on freedom of expression, and the risk of the death penalty.

The US authorities have been given three weeks to respond to a recommendation from the British court. If the court is not satisfied with the guarantees that minimum requirements will be met in the event of an extradition, Assange gets a second chance to appeal the extradition decision itself.

It may sound like obvious things and trifles, but it is not. This is the first sign that civil society’s fight for Assange is bearing fruit, and a happy signal that no one is without rights in our Western societies, not even enemies of the powerful American state.

Keep yourself updated. Get a daily newsletter from Dagsavisen

The danger is still imminent that Assange will be extradited to the United States. The decision in the High Court is at best a provisional victory. There is still reason to enjoy it.

Many texts and analyzes of the Assange case have been written in recent years. That alone is good news. When I wrote a commentary on the case four years ago, it was titled “Why is it so quiet about Assange?”. As the alert reader will appreciate, I was concerned that far too few seemed to care about the treatment of Julian Assange.

Norwegian journalists had stopped caring about Wikileaks, I wrote. In several of the bourgeois newspapers in Norway, especially Aftenposten and Bergens Tidende, prominent voices even came out and believed that Assange more or less deserved the overly harsh treatment. Forgotten was that the same newspapers published information from Wikileaks as important revelations just a few years earlier.

Also read: LO turns 125 years old, and is still as fit as a young colt, writes Kjell Werner

“The authorities, on the other hand, have not forgotten. That is why the founder Julian Assange is in a high-risk prison in England, together with convicted terrorists,” I wrote.

Since then, more and more people have become involved in the matter, both here at home and internationally. It has become increasingly longer between the texts in Norwegian newspapers that argue that Assange gets what he deserves. Everything we have of freedom of speech organizations and press organizations has been clear in their criticism of the treatment of Assange.

Now this alliance of voices from civil society has partially won out. It is an important step in the right direction.

Perhaps to an even greater extent because many are unfortunately in the process of losing confidence in Western rule of law and democracies due to the process against Assange. There has been no shortage of e-mails in my inbox saying that the Assange case shows that we in the West are not an iota better than Vladimir Putin.

It is, of course, a hesitant claim, but the feeling was about to catch on with far too many people.

The Assange case has then also been a conglomeration of superpower interests and power politics. Little shows this better than the many rounds of rape accusations against Assange after a visit to Sweden in 2010, when he was still traveling the world as a kind of internet journalism rock star.

Also read: We have created an anxious generation of young people, writes Helle Cecilie Palmer

The rape case has since been dropped and reopened several times, and is now finally dropped. But not before the British authorities, according to The Guardian newspaper, urgently asked the Swedes not to put the case aside back in 2013.

This does something to the trust in the process against Assange – and in our authorities. So does the striking silence from various Norwegian governments about the treatment of Assange. It is easy to get the impression that someone has talked together, or at least: That the US is getting what the US wants.

The decision in the British High Court at Easter is therefore an absolutely necessary reminder that we actually have independent courts and legal certainty in our part of the world. It should be of course. But it has not been so in the case of Julian Assange.

The case has not been won with the decision in the High Court, far from it. But things may be about to happen. It is now widely speculated whether the case will be resolved in an agreement between the US authorities and Assange, where he admits guilt on some points in exchange for letting him off the hook.

It is important to keep the overview here: Assange is actually accused – and has had his life ruined – because he has shared important information with the outside world. For committing journalism. A plea of ​​guilty is therefore not an ideal solution, to put it mildly.

But it is perhaps the best possible solution, which allows all parties to escape with some honor intact.

It has appeared unthinkable, but now the many who have supported Assange in recent years can actually envision a solution. It’s a pretty big win, after all.

Read more comments by Jo Moen Bredeveien

Also read: The will to solve the “boy problem” seems almost absent

Also read: Claims Trump is selling Bibles to fund lawsuit against porn star