[ad_1]
photo: William West/AFP
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange may have returned to his native Australia, but he will continue to fight for free speech and a free press, according to his lawyer Barry Pollack.
On June 26, his client was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. Pollack issued a statement to the media after the verdict, saying: “Mr. Assange disclosed true, important and newsworthy information, including revelations that the United States has committed war crimes.”
“He suffered greatly in his fight for free speech, a free press, and to ensure that the American public and the international community had access to truthful, important news information.
“We firmly believe that Mr. Assange should not be charged under the Espionage Act for doing the kind of work journalists do every day, and we thank them for doing so. However, this fight should end, as should the judge’s ruling today that Mr. Assange’s continued imprisonment is unjust and inappropriate, and that it is time for him to be reunited with his family.
Mr Assange is grateful for all the support he has received and looks forward to being reunited with his wife and children and returning home to Australia,” he said.
Pollack, answering questions from more than 40 journalists, most of whom had to scramble to travel to the remote western Pacific island nation, said Assange’s work with WikiLeaks, the nonprofit media organization that published the leaked documents, would continue.
“I have no doubt that Mr Assange will continue to be a driving force for free speech and government transparency. His voice is powerful and cannot and should not be silenced,” he said.
Pollack also said that Assange’s prosecution by the US Department of Justice for more than a decade would not only encourage the disclosure of more confidential materials in the future, but would actually set a chilling precedent.
“The fact that the US chose to charge Assange with violating the Espionage Act (had a chilling effect).
The court ruled (Thursday) that Assange’s publications did not cause any harm. We know they were newsworthy. We know they were cited by every major media outlet on the planet. We know they disclosed material information.”
He went on to say that what his client did “was news reporting,” but the U.S. government still decided to prosecute him.
“They let Assange get 175 years in prison. That’s what’s chilling. Today, the decision to let Assange go home didn’t have a chilling effect. The chilling effect is that journalism is criminalized in America. I hope this is the first and last time that happens.”
Julian Assange’s lawyers Barry Pollack (right) and Jennifer Robinson.
photo: Mark Rabago
While Pollack acknowledged his client’s guilty plea to one count of violating the U.S. Espionage Act, he said Assange would not plead guilty to 17 counts of the Espionage Act and computer hacking.
“The consensus here is very narrow, and Mr. Assange acknowledges that he accepted Chelsea Manning’s documents and released many of them because it was in the interest of the world to release them. Unfortunately, that violated the Espionage Act.
“That’s what we admitted today. We also said, and Mr. Assange made clear, that he believed that this contract should be protected by the First Amendment. But the fact is, as written, the Espionage Act does not provide a defense to the First Amendment. So, what he admitted is what he had to admit, and that is the truth, and he should not be ashamed of it. Yes, he received classified information from Chelsea Manning, and he published that information.”
He at least said that Assange’s 14-year experience in fighting the US Department of Justice will trigger an important discussion in the United States about how to balance national security and press freedom.
“He stood firm for his principles and endured detention in embassies and incarceration in high-security prisons. I hope each of us has the courage to stand firm for our ideals as Mr. Assange did. So I certainly hope he feels that he has left behind a legacy. I’m sure there are other chapters in Julian Assange’s story that have yet to be written,” Pollack said.
When asked why Assange and his legal team chose Saipan to reach a formal plea agreement with the U.S. government, Pollack said it was basically a matter of convenience.
“Because his alleged crimes occurred entirely outside the United States, the first jurisdiction he entered was the appropriate one for his prosecution. We determined, based on our agreement with the government, that this was an appropriate venue for trial. It is closest to Australia. It allows us access and allows Mr Assange to leave as a free man and return promptly to his family in Australia.”
Jennifer Robinson, Assange’s longest-serving lawyer, said Assange’s freedom was a historic day as it ended a 14-year legal battle.
“… after a 14-year legal battle, Julian Assange is finally free to return home. This also brings to an end a case that has been considered the greatest threat to the First Amendment in the 21st century. So it is a huge relief for Julian Assange, his family, friends, supporters and all of us and everyone around the world who believes in free speech that he can now return to Australia to be reunited with his family,” she said.
Robinson also doubled down on Pollack’s suggestion that the U.S. government was abusing the Espionage Act to prosecute his client.
“I think we should also recognize the impact of this case on free speech. Julian has suffered for more than 14 years because of the risk of deportation to the United States. He faced 175 years in prison for publishing evidence of war crimes, human rights violations, and U.S. wrongdoing around the world. Today, he pleaded guilty to a crime for publishing information in the public interest for which he has won journalism awards around the world and been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year for the past decade. This prosecution sets a dangerous precedent that should concern journalists around the world.”
In essence, she said, the U.S. Department of Justice is trying to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over everyone without affording them constitutional free speech protections.
“Anyone who cares about free speech and democratic accountability should oppose it. But I want to encourage all those who stood up and fought for Julian to continue to stand up and fight against his dangerous precedent. I am hopeful that the fact that we were able to, against all odds, release Julian Assange today under the watch of one of the most powerful governments in the world will give hope to imprisoned journalists and publishers around the world. We encourage all those who stood up and fought for Julian to continue to fight for him and all the others in the hope that we can secure their freedom too.”
[ad_2]
Source link
