Assange Was A Political Prisoner, Council Of Europe Parliamentarians Declare In Vote
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recognized that the WikiLeaks founder had been prosecuted and detained as a political prisoner.
The following article was made possible by paid subscribers of The Dissenter. Become a subscriber and support independent journalism on press freedom.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or PACE, approved a resolution that states WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was prosecuted and detained in the United Kingdom as a political prisoner.
Þórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, the general rapporteur for political prisoners and an Icelandic parliamentarian who serves on the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, drafted the resolution, which passed by a vote of 88-13.
The resolution urged the United States to reform the Espionage Act and “make its application conditional to the presence of a malicious intent to harm the national security of the United States or to aid a foreign power” and “exclude the application of the Espionage Act to publishers, journalists and whistleblowers,” especially those who try to inform the public about war crimes, torture, and illegal surveillance.
Assange, his wife Stella Assange, and WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson were present for the debate and vote on the resolution. They cheered, clapped, and thanked the assembly.
The debate and vote on the resolution came after Assange testified before PACE’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on October 1. It was his first public testimony since he accepted a plea deal that ended the United States Justice Department’s political case against him.
PACE’s consideration of Assange’s case was part of a wider examination by the assembly of the increased threats that journalists and whistleblowers face in Europe. A fact-finding visit to the U.K. by Ævarsdóttir occurred while Assange was still detained at Belmarsh.
“If you look at the definition of a political prisoner, Julian Assange and his case fulfills this definition,” Ævarsdóttir told the assembly. “He was convicted for engaging in acts of journalism. This is a clear instance of a politically motivated incarceration.”
She continued, “If it were any other country, if it were one of the countries that we are happy to point to having political prisoners on a regular basis here in the Parliamentary Assembly, I don’t think that there would be much of a question on whether or not this assembly is fit to determine whether someone is or is not a political prisoner. We did indeed ourselves create this definition.”
“What does this case say to those who risk their lives to report on corruption, war crimes, and human rights abuses? It says that if you dare to publish the truth you may face the full wrath of the law, however archaic and unjust the law is,” Ævarsdóttir stated. “It says that in the struggle between power and truth, power will prevail.”
Lesia
Vasylenko, a parliamentarian from Ukraine, supported the resolution and
agreed that the “biggest threat” presented by the Assange case was that
journalists may now be prosecuted under the U.S. Espionage Act.
“Editors
and publishers will start discussing whether they can publish
classified information that contributes to public debate,” Vasylenko
said. “The climate of self-censorship must be avoided at all costs so
that our societies can remain free and hold their governments to
account.”
Anna-Kristiina Mikkonen, a parliamentarian from Finland,
recalled how the WikiLeaks publications had helped confirm “the
existence of secret prisons as well as secret and illegal kidnapping
transfers carried out by the United States [the CIA] on European
territory.”
“The Assange case, and in particular the role of
[Chelsea] Manning, is very good reason to try and achieve better
protection for whistleblowers throughout the world,” Mikkonen said.
A
“dotted line” could be drawn from the Assange case to impunity for the
Spanish government “spying on dissident voices, lawyers, journalists,
and politicians” in Catalonia, “destroying democracy and not addressing
the WikiLeaks revelations on 125 German officials including [German
Chancellor Angela] Merkel,” declared Spanish parliamentarian Laura
Castel.
Castel also called out the illegal surveillance by the
United States of Assange’s “privileged legal and medical conversations
inside a sovereign embassy.” The CIA reportedly relied upon a Spanish
security firm called UC Global to target Assange, his family, his
lawyers, and associates that regularly visited him in Ecuador’s London
embassy while he lived under political asylum.
Paul Gavan, a
parliamentarian from Ireland, did not mince words in his remarks. “This
week we saw the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at its
worst and at its best. Its worst moment was the continuing refusal to
take a stand against a genocide being prosecuted against the Palestinian
people. Its best moment was the powerful testimony of Julian Assange at
the Committee for Legal Affairs yesterday.”
“I believe it was
truly significant that Julian made a number of references both to
Ukraine and Gaza and the deliberate murder of journalists in both
locations.”
“One of the most frustrating things over the last
five years is that a large chunk of the body politic both here and
across Europe chose to bury their heads in the sand,” Gavan declared.
“They chose to be silent in relation to this outrageous series of acts
against this fine man. And it’s disappointing to note that this is the
shortest list of political speakers for any debate this week.
“What does that tell us about the continuing silence? So the least we can do today is endorse this excellent report because our job is to defend media freedom.”
“Yes,
Julian Assange has worked for human rights,” said French
parliamentarian Emmanuel Fernandes. Assange revealed that the National
Security Agency in the U.S. had “wiretapped three French presidents
between 2006 and 2013.”
Fernandes linked the Assange case to the
French government's targeting of journalists. Particularly, Fernandes
recalled, in 2023, Ariane Lavrilleux was “incarcerated for 39 hours.”
French authorities seized her phone and computer. The attack on freedom of the press came two years after she revealed that “France was an accomplice in the extrajudicial killing of hundreds of people in Egypt."
“What
I do regret is that his release was not underpinned by a legal verdict.
I think it would have been very important to have some kind of legal
ruling, which would have provided greater legal certainty who dare to
denounce illegal actions,” Austrian parliamentarian Petra Bayr argued.
“So without a ruling from either a U.K. court or the European Court of
Human Rights, this does leave something of a void. Which means that
there’s a justified fear that such goings on will continue, and
journalists won’t necessarily benefit from protection.”
Julian
Pahlke, a parliamentarian from Germany, said that the case had ended
with a deal that helped the United States “maintain their image.” It was
crucial for PACE to advocate for an “umbrella of protection” against
Espionage Act prosecutions against journalists, publishers, and civil
society organizations in Council of Europe member states.
Multiple amendments were put forward by Richard Keen, a Conservative parliamentarian from the U.K. who formally dissented against the resolution. He complained that the resolution belittled the “fate of true political prisoners,” like those detained in Russia and insisted Assange was not tortured while he was held at Belmarsh.
As the time came for Keen to present his amendments for a vote, he meekly withdrew several of them. It was emblematic of how political elites in the Western world have quickly moved on from their campaign against Assange and WikiLeaks now that the case has ended and the media organization’s founder is free.
Keen was particularly annoyed by
an amendment that condemned Assange’s detention at Belmarsh. “He was not
detained as a political prisoner. That’s a simple matter of legal fact,
and if we ignore that, I think we devalue the report.”
The assembly disregarded the U.K. parliamentarian's griping and adopted the amendment.
Thirteen European parliamentarians voted against the resolution:
Altogether, the passage of a resolution recognizing that Assange was a political prisoner was an overdue act of solidarity with a journalist and an acknowledgment that another prosecution like it could easily happen if European countries do not stand up for media freedom and freedom of _expression_.
Anthony Bellanger, secretary general for the International Federation of Journalists praised the vote. "It's a victory for press freedom, for all journalists across the world and for Assange after 12 years deprived of freedom. The fight for truth has never been so necessary."
The names of the 13 European parliamentarians, who voted against the resolution and still apparently believe that the persecution against Assange was acceptable: Keen (U.K.), David Blencathra (U.K.), Sally-Ann Hart (U.K.), David Morris (U.K.), Katarzyna Sójka (Poland), Paweł Jabłoński (Poland), Hannes Germann (Switzerland), Martin Graf (Austria), Ricardo Dias Pinto (Spain), Vladimir Dordevic (Serbia), and Arminas Lydeka (Lithuania).