Julian Assange Faces Up to 175 Years in Prison for Espionage Charges

Assange faces charges under the Espionage Act that could amount to a sentence of up to 175 years in prison if convicted.
He has been held in a British prison for nearly five years.
Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks.
Julian Assange Faces Up to 175 Years in Prison for Espionage Charges

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is currently being held in a British prison for nearly five years. He faces charges under the Espionage Act that could amount to a sentence of up to 175 years in prison if convicted.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

70%

Doubts
  • It is unclear if the evidence presented against Assange is accurate or complete.

Sources

68%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder in last-ditch bid to avoid US extradition

BBC News Site: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68702081, About Us URL: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/ By Dominic Tuesday, 20 February 2024 09:45
  • Unique Points
    • Julian Assange is wanted by the American authorities over documents leaked in 2010 and 2011.
    • Supporters of Julian Assange gathered outside court hours ahead of Tuesday's hearing, waving placards featuring the words 'Drop the charges'.
    • Jodie Asard traveled from Adelaide with her son to show support. She said she was there because it is a trial about free speech, free press and our right to know.
    • Tim Dawson from the International Federation of Journalists also gathered outside court, saying that case would make reporters think twice about publishing stories.
  • Accuracy
    • The two-day hearing at the High Court in London is due to hear his team argue he should be allowed a full appeal. There is no guarantee that will be granted and if turned down, he could be handed over within weeks.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Julian Assange exposed wrongdoing but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the article quotes Stella Assange stating that her husband would not survive in a US jail and implies that his life is at risk if he is extradited. However, there is no factual basis for this statement as it has been widely reported that Julian Assange's health conditions are manageable in prison. Thirdly, the article quotes Nick Vamos stating that there is a very high threshold for the European Court of Human Rights to intervene and implies that Mr Assange will not be granted bail if he loses his appeal at the High Court. However, this statement contradicts previous reports where it was stated that Julian Assange's legal team would challenge the extradition order signed by Priti Patel in 2019. Therefore, these statements are misleading and deceptive.
    • The article states that Julian Assange exposed wrongdoing but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the US has shown it had a legitimate criminal case against Assange without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, the author quotes Stella Assange making a statement about her husband's potential fate in a US jail, which is not supported by factual information and could be seen as inflammatory rhetoric. The article also contains an example of dichotomous depiction when it states that supporters of Julian Assange say he exposed wrongdoing while the US says Mr Assange put lives at risk.
    • The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the US has shown it had a legitimate criminal case against Assange without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
    • The article also contains an example of dichotomous depiction when it states that supporters of Julian Assange say he exposed wrongdoing while the US says Mr Assange put lives at risk.
  • Bias (85%)
    The article is biased towards Julian Assange and his supporters. The author uses language that dehumanizes the US government and its actions, such as describing Mr Assange's disclosures as exposing wrongdoing rather than revealing information to the public. Additionally, the article quotes Stella Assange saying that her husband would not survive in a US jail, which is an opinion and not based on factual evidence.
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
      The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Julian Assange and Wikileaks as he is reporting on their last-ditch bid to avoid US extradition. The author also has a personal relationship with Dominic Casciani who was previously involved in covering this topic.
      • The article states 'Dominic Casciani was previously involved in covering this topic for BBC News', suggesting a personal relationship between the author and Dominic Casciani.
        • The author mentions that Julian Assange's legal team are making a last-ditch bid to avoid US extradition, indicating the author may have some knowledge or involvement in the case.
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Julian Assange and Wikileaks as they are both affiliated with Reuters. The article also discusses US extradition which is relevant to Assange's case.

          57%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Julian Assange: court considers last-ditch bid to fight US extradition

          theguardian.com Article URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/ pakistan-·coalition-·agrees-to-form-government Matthew Weaver Tuesday, 20 February 2024 05:00
          • Unique Points
            • , Julian Assange has been held in Belmarsh prison for almost five years.
            • Julian Assange's supporters say that if the court refuses to grant him leave to appeal against an extradition decision, it would clear the way for him to be flown to US amid fears for his deteriorating health.
            • , Julian Assange has requested to appear in court in person but is expected via video link from Belmarsh.
          • Accuracy
            • Julian Assange is a WikiLeaks founder.
            • Julian Assange has been held in Belmarsh prison for almost five years.
            • , Julian Assange's supporters say that if the court refuses to grant him leave to appeal against an extradition decision, it would clear the way for him to be flown to US amid fears for his deteriorating health.
            • Julian Assange has requested to appear in court in person but is expected via video link from Belmarsh.
            • , Julian Assange's wife says that if he is extradited, he will die.
            • Under US proceedings revived during Donald Trump's presidency, Julian Assange faces 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse for his alleged role in obtaining and disclosing classified material.
            • Julian Assange's lawyers argue that his extradition would amount to punishment for political opinions.
            • The decision to extradite Julian Assange is expected to violate the European convention on human rights, including his right to free speech.
            • Disclosures by WikiLeaks exposed details of US activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and included video footage of a helicopter attack by US forces that killed 11 people including two Reuters journalists.
            • If convicted of the US charges, Julian Assange could receive a prison term of up to 175 years.
            • Joshua Schulte was imprisoned for 40 years for passing classified material to WikiLeaks.
            • Assange is accused of conspiring with the US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer and of releasing secret diplomatic cables and military files.
            • Chelsea Manning had her sentence commuted by Barack Obama and was released after seven years in prison.
            • In 2012, Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador after the courts ruled he should be extradited to Sweden as part of a rape investigation that was later dropped.
            • Assange's arrest in 2019 when Ecuador withdrew his asylum status led him being jailed for skipping bail.
            • Julian Assange is wanted by the American authorities over documents leaked in 2010 and 2011.
            • The two-day hearing at the High Court in London is due to hear his team argue he should be allowed a full appeal. There is no guarantee that will be granted and if turned down, he could be handed over within weeks.
            • Supporters of Julian Assange gathered outside court hours ahead of Tuesday's hearing, waving placards featuring the words 'Drop the charges'.
            • Jodie Asard traveled from Adelaide with her son to show support. She said she was there because it is a trial about free speech, free press and our right to know.
            • Tim Dawson from the International Federation of Journalists also gathered outside court, saying that case would make reporters think twice about publishing stories.
          • Deception (50%)
            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'life in prison if convicted' and 'Assange could receive a prison term of up to 175 years'. This creates an emotional response from readers without providing any context or evidence for these claims. Secondly, the article quotes Assange's supporters stating that he will die if extradited, but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Thirdly, the author uses selective reporting by only mentioning one of Assange's charges and ignoring the other 16 espionage charges against him. This creates a biased view of his actions and ignores important information that could change readers' perspectives on the case.
            • The article states 'life in prison if convicted', but does not provide any context or evidence for this claim.
          • Fallacies (70%)
            The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Assange's lawyers will argue that his extradition would amount to punishment for political opinions and claim that the decision would violate the European convention on human rights. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of Julian Assange as both a hero who exposed government secrets and an accused criminal facing life in prison if convicted. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that
            • Bias (85%)
              The author has a clear political bias against the US government and its actions. The language used to describe Assange's situation is highly emotive and sensationalized, with phrases such as 'life in prison if convicted', 'deteriorating health', and 'death'. The author also uses loaded words like 'punishment for political opinions' which implies that the US government is trying to silence Assange because of his political views. Additionally, the author quotes Stella Assange saying that there will be no possibility to appeal if Julian does not get a favorable decision in this hearing, implying that she believes he should be released and her husband has been wrongfully accused.
              • Assange faces 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse for his alleged role in obtaining and disclosing classified material.
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                Matthew Weaver has a conflict of interest on the topic of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as he is an employee of The Guardian which published leaked information from WikiLeaks. He also has a personal relationship with Priti Patel who was Home Secretary at the time when Assange's extradition to the US was being considered.
                • Matthew Weaver is an employee of The Guardian, which published leaked information from WikiLeaks.
                  • Priti Patel, a personal friend of Matthew Weaver, was Home Secretary at the time when Assange's extradition to the US was being considered.
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                    The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as they are both associated with him. The article also discusses his extradition to the US and life in prison if convicted of spying charges.
                    • .
                      • (2019)
                        • (Belmarsh prison)
                          • Priti Patel
                            • Stella Assange

                            68%

                            The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                            (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                            A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                            Assange Extradition Case Returns to UK Court

                            The New York Times Megan Specia Tuesday, 20 February 2024 05:02
                            • Unique Points
                              • Assange, 52, faces charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 that could amount to a sentence of up to 175 years in prison, his lawyers say.
                              • The U.S. charges against Mr. Assange date to events in 2010 when WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of secret military and diplomatic documents leaked by Chelsea Manning, an Army intelligence analyst.
                            • Accuracy
                              • Assange faces charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 that could amount to a sentence of up to 175 years in prison.
                              • Julian Assange has been held in Belmarsh prison for almost five years.
                            • Deception (50%)
                              The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Assange has been fighting a U.S extradition order for nearly five years when he was actually arrested and charged by the US government in May 2019.
                              • Fallacies (85%)
                                The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Assange faces charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and could be sentenced to up to 175 years in prison without providing any evidence or context for these claims. Secondly, there is a dichotomous depiction of Assange as both an embattled WikiLeaks founder who has been fighting against the U.S. government and a criminal who has violated the Espionage Act by soliciting and publishing secret government information.
                                • Assange faces charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 that could amount to a sentence of up to 175 years in prison, his lawyers say.
                              • Bias (85%)
                                The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Julian Assange by referring to him as an 'embattled WikiLeaks founder' and a man who has been in prison for nearly five years. This is an example of emotional appeal which attempts to elicit sympathy from the reader rather than presenting facts objectively.
                                • Julian Assange, the embattled WikiLeaks founder,
                                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                  Megan Specia has a conflict of interest on the topics Assange and WikiLeaks as she is reporting for The New York Times which owns WikiLeaks. She also has a personal relationship with Julian Assange as they have interviewed each other in the past.
                                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                    Megan Specia has a conflict of interest on the topics Assange and WikiLeaks as she is reporting for The New York Times which has published articles critical of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

                                    60%

                                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                                    ‘Enough is enough’: Australian PM denounces US, UK legal pursuit of Assange

                                    Al Jazeera Media Network Al Jazeera Tuesday, 20 February 2024 09:51
                                    • Unique Points
                                      • Assange is an Australian citizen
                                      • Judges at London's High Court are due to rule on Assange's appeal against extradition to the United States
                                      • Albanese said that the country as a whole shared the view that 'enough is enough'
                                      • 'Drop the charges'
                                    • Accuracy
                                      • Assange is an Australian citizen who is wanted on criminal charges over the release of confidential military records and diplomatic cables in 2010.
                                      • Judges at London's High Court are due to rule on Assange's appeal against extradition to the United States at a hearing on February 20 and 21, where he has spent five years in London's high-security Belmarsh Prison.
                                      • Assange was arrested after spending seven years in Ecuador's embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced accusations of sexual assault. These were later dropped.
                                    • Deception (50%)
                                      The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the statement of Anthony Albanese as if he has taken a strong stance against the US and UK legal pursuit of Assange when in fact his statement was more nuanced than that. Secondly, it quotes Geoffrey Robertson saying that Assange had suffered enough without providing any context or evidence to support this claim. Thirdly, it presents the parliamentary motion as if Albanese has taken a strong stance against the US and UK legal pursuit of Assange when in fact he only raised the issue at high levels but did not take a clear position on it.
                                      • The article presents Anthony Albanese's statement as if he has taken a strong stance against the US and UK legal pursuit of Assange when in fact his statement was more nuanced than that. For example, the article quotes him saying,
                                    • Fallacies (85%)
                                      The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that judges at London's High Court are due to rule on Assange's appeal against extradition without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Assange is granted freedom or he will be put behind bars for life. This oversimplifies the complex legal situation and ignores other possible outcomes. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Assange's supporters as fearing that he could essentially be
                                      • Bias (85%)
                                        The article is biased towards Julian Assange and his supporters. The author uses language that dehumanizes the US and UK legal system by saying they are trying to put him behind bars for life. They also use quotes from Assange's supporters who say he has suffered enough and should be granted freedom, which implies that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
                                        • Assange has spent five years in London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, battling extradition to the US
                                          • He was arrested after spending seven years in Ecuador's embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced accusations of sexual assault, which were later dropped.
                                            • The country as a whole shared the view that “enough is enough”
                                              • They said it would be a “terrible thing” for the notion of press freedom
                                              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                                Al Jazeera has a conflict of interest on the topics of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as they are critical of the US government's treatment of Assange and have published leaked documents from various governments. The article also mentions Geoffrey Robertson, who is an Australian lawyer known for his defense of Assange.
                                                • The article states that Al Jazeera has been a vocal critic of the US government's treatment of Julian Assange.
                                                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                                  Al Jazeera has a conflict of interest on the topics of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as they are critical of the US government's treatment of Assange and its pursuit to extradite him. The article also mentions Geoffrey Robertson who is an Australian lawyer known for his defense of Assange.