The announcement of his release was the surprise of the beginning of the week. After seven years spent within the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, five years in prison and an interminable legal battle against his extradition to the United States, Julian Assange emerged free from the courthouse in Saipan, the largest of the Northern Mariana Islands, this Wednesday, June 26.
Free certainly, but not innocent. The founder of WikiLeaks, who became famous for having relayed more than 700,000 confidential documents on American activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, was found guilty of the only charge ultimately brought against him: the solicitation and distribution of documents classified. And received sixty-two months in prison. Sentence that he has already served in the high security prison of Belmarsh (England), where he has been incarcerated since his arrest in 2019. A verdict much more lenient than the 175 years in prison that he would face, and which results from an agreement made with the American authorities: in exchange for his freedom, the 52-year-old Australian had to plead guilty. If he feels “real relief” at the idea of knowing Julian Assange “finally free”, his French lawyer Antoine Vey does not claim victory. And for good reason, “we “can never be happy that a journalist is forced to plead guilty to regain his freedom”, storms the author of Julian Assange. The impossible plea (Plon), published at the end of May. Interview.
First of all, how is Julian Assange?
Antoine Vey Julian Assange is like anyone who found themselves imprisoned for years without being able to defend themselves. He is a journalist who found himself hampered in his ability to act and who experienced more than a decade of ordeal. Furthermore, he is aware that the freedom to inform is still in danger and cannot therefore consider his release solely as a good thing. Especially since nothing can erase the ordeal he went through. For years, he was presented as someone who would have endangered the lives of American agents, which was always contested, and especially never demonstrated.
How did he experience this deprivation of liberty which lasted almost fifteen years?
Imagine what it feels like to be cut off from the rest of the world, deprived of seeing your children, prevented from kissing your wife on her wedding day? Someone who has not experienced it cannot understand it. This is precisely one of the limits of the argument which is based on human dignity. If this line of defense was an argument that had taken hold on the collective, Julian Assange would not have even spent two days in prison. I also draw your attention to the fact that the UN considered his detention arbitrary.
How long has this agreement been in the works?
These are not questions we can answer as lawyers. Otherwise, there is no longer any professional secrecy. This type of agreement is discussed in an ultra-confidential framework otherwise nothing happens. What I can tell you is that Assange was in a position of sufficient strength to allow this agreement to succeed.
Did you fear until the last minute that he might not come out free?
It’s a case that has had so many twists and turns: the refusal of extradition, its authorization. There is also the Covid-19 crisis which has been very difficult to live with. Not to mention the right of appeal… So we were not in a position which gave us the latitude to predict what was going to happen. But his release remains a real relief.
“The fact that a journalist is forced to make amends, to plead guilty to informing, is very bad news for the press.”
If the outcome of this agreement can be analyzed as a victory for Julian Assange, is it not on the other hand a defeat for press freedom?
The fact that a journalist is forced to make amends, to plead guilty to having informed, is very bad news for the press. It is even an indicator which demonstrates the urgency of strengthening freedom of information because we can never be satisfied that a journalist is condemned for doing his job.
In an interview with the online media Crayon, you raise a specificity of the Assange case: according to you, all the guarantees normally granted to journalists have been confiscated from him. Do you think the American authorities wanted to make an example of him to discourage other journalists from following in his footsteps?
Certainly yes. There is a quote from Kafka that says: “Accusation is punishment.” And this is exactly the mechanism that fell on Assange as on many others after him. It is in tune with the times. Today we can accuse someone before they even go before a judge. This case is symptomatic of what millions of people experience when they are faced with divorce or child custody: access to a judge who has sufficient power to uphold a balanced position based on the rules of law. is extremely complicated.
Do you think his release could set a precedent? Could Edward Snowden, for example, hope for an agreement of this type?
We must be wary of analogies. Snowden’s case is very different from Assange’s. First of all, Julian is not a US civil servant but a journalist who put himself in danger for exercising his profession. Secondly, he did not steal any information. He simply disseminated documents transmitted by whistleblowers. Snowden’s case is closer to that of Chelsea Manning, who was freed thanks to the action of Barack Obama. But for the moment, I do not think that there is any desire on the part of the American authorities to relax the repression exercised against journalists who come into contact with classified documents.
Could his release have taken place with Donald Trump as President of the United States?
Things are not so Manichean: there are not bad Republicans and good Democrats. In this affair, the American administration had moments of acceleration and moments of deceleration. The Assange case has always been a stone in the shoe of American power because they were aware of the unjustified nature of the accusation.
Could a similar case occur in France?
Yes, and in fact I think that is already the case. Journalists are put under pressure and put themselves in danger when they get as close as possible to sensitive information. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of procedures targeting journalists with the seizure of their materials under the pretext that they were covering confidential information.
Now I think that the judicial and political culture of France is very different from that of the United States. American intelligence does not act at all in the same way as our services. This is also what we tried to do in the Assange affair: French and European culture is quite far from that of the United States: in terms of the sentence, the way in which we consider the evidence, but also of the way we treat information and journalists. The fact remains that our country should be more vocal in the voice of those who fight for freedom.
In your opinion, could France have done more in this matter?
I am very critical because I would have liked France and journalists to support him more. We must not neglect the political interests which justify why the French government has preferred to remain cautious. I also note that American interests are so powerful that France has not been able to speak clearly in favor of defending the journalist Julian Assange. But I am counting on our country to support him in his future fights for freedom of the press and information.
Precisely, after having paid dearly for the consequences of this commitment, does Julian Assange not want to devote himself to something else?
I can’t speak for him. He is now a free man, he no longer needs his lawyer to speak for him. He will find everything of which he had been deprived, so it will be up to him to express himself, communicate and live as he wishes. One thing is certain: this release does not mean the end of the fight. Julian is someone immensely courageous, determined in the cause he represents. However, I hope that he will take the time to devote himself to his family life and his loved ones. He’s a very endearing person, he deserves it.
.