While Julian Assange was only flown half way around the world today, the whole world was watching.
Will people believe and accept the verdict or was this simply a waste of carbon emissions?
Assange was given a choice: his health deteriorating, he might die a martyr. If waiting in the two by three meter cell didn't kill him, he might survive appeal after appeal to be released from prison some time after his children have grown up in another ten or fifteen years.
Or, he could plead guilty to a single charge. This would give him the opportunity to live a little longer and spend time with his children as they grow up.
Therefore, was he making a decision about his plea based on the facts of the case? Or was he making the decision to plead guilty based on the side effects of a lengthy extradition and trial?
When Assange published classified information, he might not have been aware of the specific rules of US espionage law and how it applies to journalists in foreign lands. In a general sense, however, he would have understood that the disclosure of those documents may impact some careers and maybe even lives. This is a decision that every journalist and editor has to think about every time they choose to publish something that may identify a private person.
Whether Assange realized his actions violated specific US laws is not clear. What is clear is that after spending so much time in captivity and isolation, very few human beings would be able to make decisions objectively and sanely. Anybody intelligent enough to be a US district judge would surely realize he entered a plea of guilty under duress. Whether the judge realized or not, most observers of the case will also realize he entered a guilty plea under duress.
Wikileaks was quick to criticize the police operation that transferred Assange from the prison to the airport.
Specifically, news reports suggest that all this effort was put into place to prevent an attempt at escape.
For Wikileaks to be taken seriously as a form or journalism, they need to report every side of the story.
For example, we need to remember that the British police assigned to this task are not paid the same salary as the ministers who decide on Assange's fate. The police have to think about their own safety and the risk of interference from any foreign power who feels aggrieved by publications on Wikileaks. It is not out of the question to imagine third parties wanting to either abduct or kill Assange. In such circumstances, it appears better for the police to be over-resourced rather than under-resourced.
Assange's final destination appears to be Canberra airport. Canberra is a relatively small city concerned with Australian political leaders and the institutions they manage. Most of Assange's friends are in larger cities like Melbourne and Sydney.
Therefore, the decision to route his flight to Australia's obscure capital may have some symbolic significance too.
As he has been convicted of a crime, it is not clear they will want to welcome him as some form of hero. Nonetheless, they may want to take some credit for bringing the case to a conclusion.
Britain is in the middle of an election campaign and if Assange really is as unwell as the news reports suggested, the British government would not want him to die on British soil in the lead up to their election. It looks like there was nothing that Britain would gain from this situation, therefore, they will be happy to see him in another jurisdiction.
Australia will have elections in a few months. The Government will want to show that they resolved some critical international issue. It looks like the situations in Ukraine and Gaza are not going to be nearly as easy to resolve. Fixing the Assange issue demonstrates the Prime Minister has influence abroad.
If Australia wins a whole lot of medals in the Paris Olympics, the Australian government may well call an election for September. As in the case of every previous Olympics and Commonwealth Games, the politicians will be keen to be photographed in proximity to athletes returning to Australia with a fist full of gold medals.
The US is constantly asking allies like Australia and the UK to commit our best personnel to military campaigns chosen by Washington. Every now and then they need to give something back. At the same time, Assange's predicament was an ongoing question mark again America's first amendment. Therefore, after so many years of criticism about it, they probably wanted to see the matter concluded expediently with a plea deal.
The fact that this deal has taken place suggests that the authorities do not have significant fear about Assange being at large in the community.
Now that he has been convicted by a US court he will presumably have difficulty traveling abroad to visit some other countries. Airlines may be nervous about transporting him. He may now find himself stuck in Australia.
US citizens have the bill of rights. Australia has no equivalent protections and the Australian government will go to great lengths to monitor Assange and those who interact with him.
If they were not confident in their ability to control and monitor him in Australia then they may not have released him.
This tells us a lot about the pervasive nature of mass surveillance in Australia.
There is some possibility Assange may be able to take a role in civil society, for example, by running for a seat in parliament or lecturing at a university. Many companies are concerned about protecting their data and they are willing to pay for somebody like Assange to come and give a talk to their staff, even if it is for no other reason than to remind their staff that people like Assange are real.