Supporters of Julian Assange gather outside Westminster Court after the WikiLeaks founder's arrest. Photo: WIktor Szymanowicz / NurPhoto / AFP

On September 7, Julian Assange will leave his cell in Belmarsh Prison in London and attend a hearing that will determine his fate. After a long period of isolation, he was finally able to meet his partner, Stella Moris, and see their two sons, Gabriel, 3, and Max, 1, on August 25. After the visit, Moris said he looked to be in “a lot of pain.”

The hearing that Assange will face has nothing to do with the reasons for his arrest from the Ecuadoran Embassy in London on April 11, 2019. He was arrested that day for his failure to surrender in 2012 to the British authorities, who would have extradited him to Sweden; in Sweden, at that time, there were accusations against Assange of sexual offenses.

That case was dropped in November 2019. Indeed, after the Swedish authorities decided not to pursue Assange, he should have been released by the UK government. But he was not.

The true reason for the arrest was never the charge in Sweden; it was the desire of the US government to have him brought to the United States on a range of charges. On April 11, 2019, the UK Home Office said, “We can confirm that Julian Assange was arrested in relation to a provisional extradition request from the United States of America. He is accused in the United States of America of computer-related offenses.”

Chelsea Manning

The day after Assange’s arrest, the campaign group Article 19 published a statement that while the UK authorities had “originally” said they wanted to arrest Assange for fleeing bail in 2012 toward the Swedish extradition request, it had now become clear that the arrest was due to a US Justice Department claim on him. The US wanted Assange on a “federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified US government computer.”

Assange was accused of helping whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 when Manning passed to WikiLeaks, led by Assange, an explosive trove of classified information from the US government that contained clear evidence of war crimes. Manning spent seven years in prison before her sentence was commuted by then-US president Barack Obama.

While Assange was in the Ecuadoran Embassy and now as he languishes in Belmarsh Prison, the US government has attempted to create an airtight case against him. The US Justice Department indicted Assange on at least 18 charges, including the publication of classified documents and a charge that he helped Manning crack a password and hack into a computer at the Pentagon. One of the indictments, from 2018, makes the case against Assange clearly.

The charge that Assange published the documents is not the central one, since the documents were also published by a range of media outlets such as The New York Times and The Guardian.

The key charge is that Assange “actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on US Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications. Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash.”

The problem here is that it appears the US government has no evidence that Assange colluded with Manning to break into the US system.

Manning does not deny that she broke into the system, downloaded the materials, and sent them to WikiLeaks. Once she had done this, WikiLeaks, like the other media outlets, published the materials.

Manning had a very trying seven years in prison for her role in the transmission of the materials. Because of the lack of evidence against Assange, Manning was asked to testify against him before a grand jury. She refused and now is once more in prison; the US authorities are using her imprisonment as a way to compel her to testify against Assange.

What Manning sent to Assange

On January 8, 2010, WikiLeaks announced that it had “encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians.” The video, later released as “Collateral Murder,” showed in cold-blooded detail how on July 12, 2007, US AH-64 Apache helicopters fired 30-millimeter guns at a group of Iraqis in New Baghdad; among those killed were Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver Saeed Chmagh.

Reuters immediately asked for information about the killings; it was fed the official story and told that there was no video, but Reuters futilely persisted.

In 2009, Washington Post reporter David Finkel published The Good Soldiers, based on his time embedded with the 2-16 Battalion of the US military. Finkel was with the US soldiers in Al-Amin neighborhood when they heard the Apache helicopters firing.

For his book, Finkel had watched the tape (this is evident from pages 96 to 104); he defends the US military, saying that “the Apache crew had followed the rules of engagement” and that “everyone had acted appropriately.” Finkel had made it clear that a video existed, even though the US government denied its existence to Reuters.

The video is horrifying. It shows the callousness of the pilots. The people on the ground were not shooting at anyone. The pilots fire indiscriminately. “Look at those dead bastards,” one of them says, while another says, “Nice,” after they fire at the civilians.

A van pulls up at the carnage, and a person gets out to help the injured, including Saeed Chmagh. The pilots request permission to fire at the van, get permission rapidly, and shoot.

Army Specialist Ethan McCord, part of the 2-16 Battalion that had Finkel embedded with them, surveyed the scene from the ground minutes later. In 2010, McCord told Wired’s Kim Zetter what he saw: “I have never seen anybody being shot by a 30-millimeter round before. It didn’t seem real, in the sense that it didn’t look like human beings. They were destroyed.”

In the van, McCord and other soldiers found badly injured Sajad Mutashar, 10, and Doaha Mutashar, 5; their father, Saleh, who had tried to rescue Saeed Chmagh, was dead on the ground. In the video, the pilot saw that there were children in the van. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” he says callously.

Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, said in April 2010 that the events on the video were “extremely tragic.” But the cat was out of the bag. This video showed the world the actual character of the US war on Iraq, which the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, had called “illegal.” The release of the video by Assange and WikiLeaks embarrassed the US government. All its claims of humanitarian warfare had no credibility.

The campaign to destroy Assange begins at that point. The US government has made it clear that it wants to try Assange for everything up to treason. People who reveal the dark side of US power, such as Assange and Edward Snowden, are given no quarter.

There is a long list of people – such as Manning, Jeffrey SterlingJames HitselbergerJohn Kiriakou, and Reality Winner – who, if they lived in countries being targeted by the United States, would be called dissidents. Manning is a hero for exposing war crimes; Assange, who merely assisted her, is being persecuted in plain daylight.

On January 28, 2007, a few months before he was killed by the US military, Namir Noor-Eldeen took a photograph in Baghdad of a young boy with a soccer ball under his arm who steps around a pool of blood. Beside the bright-red blood lie a few rumpled schoolbooks.

It was Noor-Eldeen’s humane eye that went for that photograph, with the boy walking around the danger as if it were nothing more than garbage on the sidewalk. This is what the US war had done to his country.

All these years later, that war remains alive and well in a courtroom in London; there Julian Assange, who revealed the truth of the killing, will struggle against being one more casualty of the US war on Iraq.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute, which provided it to Asia Times.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is the chief editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest book is Washington Bullets, with an introduction by Evo Morales Ayma.

Asia Times Financial is now live. Linking accurate news, insightful analysis and local knowledge with the ATF China Bond 50 Index, the world's first benchmark cross sector Chinese Bond Indices. Read ATF now.