To get Julian Assange to face the Swedish allegations, America should back off

If the US promises not to extradite him from Sweden, Julian Assange may be able to put an end to the saga

For 15 days now, Julian Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The WikiLeaks founder, whose 41st birthday is today, is seeking to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations and has requested political asylum. Assange fears he will be held incommunicado in Sweden and ultimately handed over to authorities in the United States, who have confirmed they are continuing to investigate WikiLeaks for publishing thousands of classified government documents in 2010.

This latest bizarre episode in the Assange saga has sparked fiery arguments between supporters and critics of the divisive WikiLeaks frontman. Some have dismissed Assange’s fears as paranoia and accused him of attempting to dodge justice by seeking refuge in the embassy. Others have likened Assange’s plight to that of dissidents in countries like China, arguing that he is right to seek asylum given that there are continued calls for his extradition in America, where the vice-president has branded him a high-tech terrorist.

But what the supporters and critics do not seem to realise is that most of them share a common ground. Very few of Assange’s opponents, aside from a handful of rabid right-wing commentators, believe WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for its involvement in publishing classified documents. Even former New York Times editor Bill Keller, who has savaged Assange on several occasions, has said he would back WikiLeaks if a prosecution were to go ahead.

So the solution here seems obvious. Given that at the core of Assange’s asylum application are his fears that the US Department of Justice would like to lock him up, people on all sides of the debate should be calling for the Obama administration to give an assurance that it will not try to extradite Assange for his publishing work. Why? Because if the US government stopped pursuing Assange, he would go to Sweden. Then the prosecutors there could question him face-to-face, lodge formal charges if there is a case to be heard in court, take the thing to trial and let the judicial process run its course.

Assange has concerns that he will not get a fair trial in Sweden, in part due to what his legal team have argued were prejudicial comments made by the country’s prime minister about the case. But at least without fears of a US extradition hanging over his head, once the Swedish case was in motion Assange would have little else to worry about. Equally important, the women who made the allegations against him would get their chance to be heard. The conclusion, whatever the outcome, would bring closure to this long-drawn out affair which has now become nothing short of a complete fiasco.

It is worth recalling that when Assange was first arrested in London over the sexual assault allegations in December 2010, the US government was pleased. Then-defence secretary Robert Gates, visiting Afghanistan at the time, was asked for his reaction. He smirked and said: "sounds good to me." Gates’s off-the-cuff comment spoke volumes about how senior officials in the Obama administration had very little interest in the particulars of the Swedish case. There was a real sense at the time that they just wanted Assange to disappear, and that has not changed.

To top officials in the White House, Assange is undoubtedly seen as a threat, an agitator, a dangerous opponent they would like to see neutralised. But if the Obama administration, which has pursued a uniquely aggressive anti-whistleblower policy, was actually to launch a formal prosecution against Assange in a bid to extradite him, there would be counter-productive consequences. It would radicalise swathes of young people and be condemned by newspapers and NGOs around the world as an outrageous attack on press freedom. It would damage America’s standing in the world and fundamentally undermine Obama’s personal legacy as a president.

Let us not forget that Assange has helped expose war crimes, breaches of international law, and other questionable actions on an unparalleled scale. Obama has already lost a great deal of support due to his secret kill list, his out-of-control drone programme, and his failure to close prison camp Guantanamo Bay. An unjust prosecution against Assange would symbolise the political death knell of Obama – the man who, just four years ago, galvanised millions with his promises of hope and change.

Right now, Assange is in a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy, sleeping on what one man who visited him said was an inflatable mattress. His situation currently is not far from a kind of imprisonment, and all because he fears being handed over to America. Whether or not US authorities are foolish enough to actually attempt to prosecute Assange at some point down the line, they will be happy to see him face this crisis. In a sense, by refusing to rule out an extradition attempt they are punishing him by proxy.

Almost 7000 people have signed a petition calling for Ecuador to accept Assange’s asylum request – yet regardless of what the country decides, Assange can still be arrested by the Metropolitan police the moment he sets foot outside the embassy. And even if he somehow made it to Ecuador, he would be forced to live a life in exile for years to come, shadowed constantly by a cloud of fear and restricted in the countries he could visit.

It would make far more sense for Assange's supporters to join forces with some of his critics, shifting focus by lobbying the US government directly. Whatever your opinion of Assange's personality, that does not matter in the broader scheme of things. The US government’s desire to pursue a prosecution against him is an attack on principles of press freedom, principles that any democratic society must strive to defend.

Alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning was held in conditions described by the UN’s special rapporteur on torture as "cruel, inhuman and degrading" in a military prison for ten months. It was public indignation over his treatment that helped move him to a new prison, where he is now treated more humanely. There is no reason why a sustained and well-organised campaign, headed by some of Assange’s many high-profile backers, could not have a similar impact. An assurance from the US government that it will not seek to extradite Assange as part of its WikiLeaks investigation is the only way this saga can have a desirable ending.

Julian Assange, arriving for a hearing in the Supreme Court. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496