The Guardian view on extraditing Julian Assange: don’t do it

Sweden’s decision to drop an investigation into a rape allegation against Julian Assange has both illuminated the situation of the WikiLeaks founder and made it more pressing. He must be defended against extradition to the United States in a case that digs at the foundations of freedom and democracy in both Britain and the US, and could see him sentenced to a total of 175 years.

Mr Assange is in Belmarsh prison, where he served a 50-week sentence for skipping bail. He had entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid arrest when Sweden asked Britain to extradite him for questioning. Though he denies any wrongdoing, that investigation was appropriate. Prosecuting authorities have said the complainant’s evidence was credible and reliable, but that the passage of time – Mr Assange entered the embassy in 2012 – meant that witnesses’ memories had faded.

The path has now been cleared for the US charges against him. They are entirely different. They relate to the secret military and diplomatic files provided by Chelsea Manning, which exposed appalling abuses by the US, and corrupt and brutal behaviour by other governments. These were covered by the Guardian, the New York Times and others, providing the public with important and necessary information. The Guardian, like others, strongly opposed Mr Assange’s subsequent decision to publish unredacted documents in bulk. But the material’s importance remains indisputable.

The Obama administration decided against pursuing Mr Assange under the Espionage Act, realising the threat to first amendment rights. Donald Trump enthused about his organisation on the 2016 campaign trail: “I love WikiLeaks,” he announced, after it published Democratic party emails stolen by Russian state hackers. But his administration has chosen to prosecute Mr Assange, and to do so explicitly on charges of publishing classified information through WikiLeaks.

Press freedom advocates in the US have rightly described this decision as “terrifying” and a “dire threat” to reporters, particularly given Mr Trump’s relentless assaults upon the media. But Sajid Javid, then home secretary, signed the extradition order and the matter is with the courts. The full proceedings will begin in February.

The case against extradition is strengthened by the nature of the US penal system – particularly given concerns about Mr Assange’s health – and the shameful treatment of Ms Manning. The army whistleblower was held in solitary confinement for years. Though her sentence was commuted by Barack Obama, she has been jailed again, for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury assumed to relate to Mr Assange’s case.

This is not a question of how wise Mr Assange is, still less how likable. It is not about his character, nor his judgment. It is a matter of press freedom, and the public’s right to know. It is unclear whether it would be safe to extradite Mr Assange to the US. It is certain that it would not be right.