Only seven minutes needed the senior judge at Westminster Court Paul Goldspring dictate the journalist’s extradition Julian Assangeafter giving credence to US assurances that the WikiLeaks founder will “get a fair trial” in the same country whose intelligence services planned his assassination in 2017.
However, this is not the end of the legal battle to overturn the status quo of the journalist, because there are still leads which will delay the definitive solution for a few months.
As indicated Aitor Martineza lawyer from Julian Assange’s legal team and WikiLeaks, “indeed there are still many legal elements of the extradition which will be challenged and elucidated in the various fora of the United Kingdom”.
At the moment, the sentence from the London court has already been sent to the controversial British Home Secretary Pritti Patel who, as happened with the Pinochet case in 2000, should in this case be the one who dictates the final decision whether or not to extradite the prisoner, whatever the decision of the British justice.
Martinez, of iload law firm who drives Baltasar Garzonpoints out that “the extradition now moves to a governmental phase, in which the British government must decide on the extradition. In this phase, various grounds can be put forward which block the surrender, such as, for example, the principle of specialty, c It is, in other words, the fear that once returned to the United States, he could pursue other criminal cases that were not extradited, something that seems obvious.
Likewise, the lawyer points out that “regardless of the element of the humanitarian situation and the guarantees of the United States, even there are many legal points that can be appealed in what is called incident call.
“Among other things, explains the lawyer, the fact that this is a persecution that is not based on any criminal act, but rather it’s just political persecution; or the violation that persecution entails of the legitimate right to freedom of the press, since the fact of publishing truthful information on war crimes cannot be considered criminal”.
On the other hand, the lawyer of Julian Assange points out that there are more elements likely to be appealed, such as “concerning the principle of proportionality, whereas the potential penalties of 175 years in prison under the Espionage Act against a journalist who merely carried out his work as such have been clarified; or the abuse of criminal extraterritoriality, since the United States jurisdiction persecutes a foreign citizen, for publication abroad; or various aspects related to deployment of brutal spy tools against Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, even planning his assassination, as the confessions of the CIA agents themselves revealed in the American press”.
Priti Patel, a worrying interior minister
The profile of the Minister of the Interior of the Government of Boris Johnsonin whose hands lies the future of the journalist and founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange, brings together all the elements to worry.
The humble origins of Priti Patel, as daughter of hindu immigrants arrived in the UK at the end of the 1960s, after a long and arduous journey through Uganda, not only did they not leave this London-born girl with a modicum of sympathy and solidarity with the less fortunate, but also has become the scourge of immigration and the poor.
But this does not exclude the the death penalty as a deterrent against crime, even if he keeps a low profile on this issue because he is aware that the death penalty is “politically incorrect”.
In 2019, coinciding with his entry into the British government, the controversy was recovered when his statements were recovered in the BBC Question Time program in 2014, where he supported the restoration of the death penalty, when he had just taken office as Treasury Exchequer Secretary (Secretaria de Hacienda del Tesoro) in the government of David Cameron.
Priti Patel’s words were: “Murderers and rapists are sent to prison, to reoffend after being released”. And he added: “On that basis alone, I would actually support the reintroduction of capital punishment as a deterrent.”.
Some time later he accepted a Interview with SKY News in 2015 where Priti Patel shows her discomfort with the journalist’s questions, refusing to give a definitive answer on her position on the death penalty. Don’t take it. Here is the transcript of the interview:
– Yesterday it emerged how you, Minister for Labor and Finance, and Michael Gove, Minister for Justice, pleaded for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Is it something you would keep now?
-Look, I mean, I’ve been asked about this a few times before as well. I made a comment a long time ago and said yes. I just know it was appropriate then, but not now, but back then, when we had the most heinous and heinous crimes.
It is not something that is relevant to today’s debate or political discourse. I am very focused on my work as Minister of Labour. You know, support what we’re doing, keep up what we’re doing when it comes to growing our economy and getting more people back to work…
-You may think it is not appropriate to ask, but it is appropriate to ask whether you still believe it or not.
-I already told you exactly: this comment is from a long time ago. It was Question Time, I repeat, it was said a long time ago and it is not relevant to today’s debate.
admirer of Margaret ThatcherPriti Patel has strongly supported Brexit, and has very close relations with senior Israeli leaders, both in the intelligence services, as well as business people and also with the former president Benjamin Netanyahu.
In fact, he regularly held meetings and gatherings not authorized by the UK. In 2017, Priti Patel’s perseverance in these unofficial contacts with Israeli ministers, businessmen and high-level lobbyists, as credited Guardianforced him to resign from his post in the government of Therese May. It was precisely Boris Johnson who in 2019 would “save” Patel by appointing her Home Secretary.
His ultra-conservative profile also includes a deeply racist character, promoting the law that deports all immigrants arriving from Europe through the Channel, who will automatically be flown to Rwanda, a country with which the United Kingdom has signed an agreement. with its president.