Refusing to extradite Assange to the US on mental health grounds is humane, but it doesn’t protect future whistleblowers
Julian Assange’s extradition to the US to face charges of espionage and hacking cannot take place. This ruling by judge Vanessa Baraitser is a victory, albeit one not won on the principled grounds that should form the basis of opposing his extradition. The legal basis of the ruling is that “extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm”. The WikiLeaks founder has a “recurrent depressive disorder” and he was likely to be imprisoned in a supermax prison, where procedures would not prevent Assange “from finding a way to commit suicide”.
It is not to critique the soundness of Baraitser’s legal judgment to argue that this was the right decision, but for the wrong reason. That a British court has ruled that the US prison system is too barbaric to guarantee the safety of Assange tells its own story. But this is about something much bigger than Assange: it’s about journalism, the free press, and most importantly of all, the ability to expose atrocities committed by the world’s last remaining superpower.
