 On March 26, the UK High Court granted provisional permission to journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to appeal his extradition to the United States. The ruling was handed out in London on Tuesday as supporters of Assange gathered outside the court to demand his freedom. Assange has been held for the past five years in the Belmarsh maximum security prison, while the United States has sought to extradite Assange to prosecute him on 18 charges, 17 of which are under the Draconian Espionage Act. These charges are related to the publication of classified documents on WikiLeaks exposing war crimes and human rights abuses committed by US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other countries. To understand this latest development in the Assange case and what lies ahead, we're pleased to be joined by journalist and press freedom advocate Kevin Gustola. He writes the dissenter newsletter and is the author of the book Guilty of Journalism, The Political Case Against Julian Assange. Kevin, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks, it's good to be talking with you. Well, let's get right into it. Can you start off by explaining the details of the verdict that was delivered by the British courts today? Assange has been permitted to appeal but on limited grounds. So what are these grounds? What does this verdict really mean? Yeah, so there were nine grounds for appeal that were put forward to the High Court of Justice and six of them were rejected. I would say two and a half were upheld and I say half because the idea that he has freedom of expression was not recognized or the challenge to his violation of freedom of expression as a journalist was not upheld. What the UK High Court of Justice determined was that this issue was related to the fact that a lead prosecutor on the case, Gordon Cromberg, he's the assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia where Julian Assange is being prosecuted, that he made a colossal error or mistake or maybe he wasn't making a mistake. He was just telling us some truth that normally US officials would be better off hiding so that they don't get in trouble for it. But he said that Julian Assange as a non US citizen would not have First Amendment rights during a trial in the United States. And that actually might be true because the Supreme Court has previously ruled in such a manner. But the UK High Court of Justice didn't like it given that Julian Assange would like to argue that his First Amendment rights should prevent his prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they had questions about the extent to which he would be granted First Amendment rights protections as a defendant. We need to understand that when you go through a trial in the US, people are usually conferred constitutional rights while they are going through prosecutions. And they questioned the idea that he would be treated fairly. So they thought there is enough evidence there that we could have a hearing over the amount of prejudice that might exist against Julian Assange and that they've also seen US officials talk openly against Julian Assange in a hostile manner. And now this relates to perhaps the even greater issue of how he could face the death penalty if he is extradited to the United States. Another mistake or perhaps not a mistake but an intention on the part of the US government is that they did not assure the judge that he would not be exposed to the death penalty when the issue was raised during a hearing back in February. What an attorney representing the Home Secretary, the UK Home Secretary said, was that there's nothing there that says that he couldn't face additional charges when he is extradited. They could add treason or aiding and abetting treason. They could add an espionage charge that would be separate from what we see under the Espionage Act. I understand that people may think I'm being repetitive, but we're talking about the idea that he was now spying against the United States and not just the way in which the Espionage Act is written, where it's been used to target whistleblowers and people who reveal classified information or state secrets to the press, information that has been in the public interest. And so these are the grounds for which he was granted a limited appeal. But they said to the United States, if you just give us some assurances that you will protect his First Amendment rights or give him First Amendment rights, or if you say that the death penalty is off the table, then we won't go through this trouble of having an appeal hearing and you can just extradite him. And so once again, we see as previously that the UK High Court of Justice is putting the diplomatic relationship, the relationship of two allies before the human rights of a journalist that is being persecuted. We see that as they did back when they had issues about how he would be treated in jail and in prison that they are now saying to the US, just tell us you won't do the thing that we knew you were going to do all along, and then we'll pretend like there's no problems and we'll wipe our hands of it and you can have the person you want to put on trial. Well, I think importantly, people have also raised concerns about this ruling because as you said, only essentially two and a half of the grounds that were raised by his legal team were accepted. So what are the grounds that were excluded from the appeal and what does this exclusion imply? Excluded was the idea that he's being targeted for his political opinions. And that's something that in extradition law is well established. This idea and there's also a protection that's supposed to exist there for someone who's accused of political offenses. Espionage is what's known as a pure political offense typically. And you can understand this that if a government that is not the one, let's say you're seeking refuge in a country and your home country seeks your extradition, you can understand how that country where you are living might be concerned if they hand you over to that power because you have done something that politically offends them. But oftentimes those things that they are accusing you of would not be a problem to that government. So that's why it gets treated as a political offense. That's why it's usually there's hesitation on the part of a government in extraditing a person and going through with this request. Another ground that was denied was the idea that his right to life or his right to be free from torture or cruel and inhuman treatment would be violated. And particularly, his attorneys wanted the High Court to consider what they call fresh evidence which was in the Yahoo News report that came out in September 2021 that had over 30 officials from President Donald Trump's administration and some who were current or former officials in US intelligence agencies who had access and knowledge of alleged acts that were committed by CIA director Mike Pompeo and others when they sketched out war plans that included kidnapping or even killing Julian Assange while he was in the Ecuador Embassy living under diplomatic asylum. And they said, no, we're not going to allow that evidence into this appeal. In fact, the district judge at when reviewing the extradition request already considered this evidence and astonishingly, when she looked at it, she recognized and we are recognizing now that this did not involve extradition proceedings. This surveillance, this targeting of Assange was ongoing outside of the scope of this case against Julian Assange, which I find to be ridiculous, but it actually says that in the decision that he was sought after because they found him to be some kind of national security threat, that's in the district decision in this High Court of Justice decision. It repeats this falsehood that Julian Assange was trying to leave the embassy and go to Russia to become some kind of ambassador and that he was going to be conferred this diplomatic status by Russia. And so it feeds into this idea that he was some kind of Russian plant or that he was somehow conspiring against the United States as a spy, something that attorneys close to him, including a Spanish attorney, Ayator Martinez has debunked, has debunked the idea that they were ever going to try to feed into the hysteria that was happening in the United States around Russia. They were going to steer clear of it. They don't say that he couldn't have gone and sought asylum, but they say that they did not want to do this. And in fact, what happened was there was a kind of rogue Ecuadorian official who brought a diplomatic passport from Russia, kind of understanding that it would entrap Julian Assange. We need to recognize the amount of pressure that was happening from the US government under Trump on the Ecuadorian government and the way in which Ecuador was souring on keeping Julian Assange in the embassy and protecting him. So they came back and they said, we'd like a Bolivian or a Colombian or a Venezuelan or some other country passport to be the place that we would try to allow him to leave. But this was picked up by UC Global. This was picked up by other intelligence operatives. It became a part of the narrative has now wormed its way into this UK High Court decision. It is now a part of this. And unfortunately, as great as that Yahoo News report is, it covers this aspect of Russia. And so being that it is in there, it is if you take seriously what is being alleged about the CIA, you also unfortunately have the UK High Court of Justice taking seriously these allegations that are unproven related to Russia in that Yahoo News report. And that is getting Julian Assange in a little bit of trouble today. So you sort of touched on this before, but I was wondering if you could comment a bit on these assurances that the US has to give. I believe it has three weeks to give assurances following which an extradition could potentially be authorized. So can you talk about what these assurances mean? How do you view them? The assurances that the US may provide could be simple and straightforward just as they were when it came to the promises they gave related to how he would be treated in prison. Just to refresh people's memory, the same court heard assurances related with the fact that the district court had ruled that extradition would be oppressive for mental and physical health reasons. And the judge actually cited the way people are treated in US prisons and detention centers. And it was of a concern that Julian Assange would take his own life if he was in US custody. So those were simply put forward. So the assurances could be in the form of we will not seek the death penalty against Julian Assange. That could be one. The second one could be we will grant him or he will have first amendment rights that are conferred to any defendants that are put on trial, any foreign defendants that are put on trial in a US court. And it would be that simple. People shouldn't confuse the idea of a first amendment challenge to the Espionage Act with the first amendment rights that somebody should have while being prosecuted. Those are actually separate. I realize that they are linked. And in fact, the High Court of Justice may not fully appreciate how those are distinct issues. And it may be hard for people to understand unless they are lawyers or law experts, but they are different matters. And they're both important. I think they're both equally important. But the assurances can have loopholes. It is possible that the UK High Court of Justice will accept these assurances, and you and me can see right through them that it will be transparent that this does not protect Julian Assange's rights. That's the way it was when they said, oh, we won't put him in a supermax prison. Oh, we won't put him in special administrative measures, which is a system of harsh confinement that the Justice Department can impose. The Attorney General approves of it. The CIA and various US intelligence agencies have input. If they deem Julian Assange a national security threat, they can put him under these harsh restrictions. Oh, there's a loophole in the fact that they say he would have mental health treatment that would be available to him. Defendants who are prisoners in detention or people waiting trial, and then later after they are convicted, they don't typically have their own medical team that is dedicated to their mental or physical health. And that is something that right now Julian Assange has in Belmarsh High Security Prison. As much as it is harsh and it has a nickname of being a kind of British Guantanamo, people need to understand that he has been given particular attention to his needs when he has had medical issues. But that would not be afforded to him in the United States. And yet the UK High Court of Justice accepted these assurances that we all can see have loopholes. They accepted this idea that he could be transferred to the Australia, to his home country, to Australia to serve his sentence. And there he could do that. But the fact of the matter was that assurance was it was clear that the US government could ignore his application to Australia. Or it's possible that Australia would feel like they couldn't take up the application for a prison transfer, that they that they wouldn't come and get him and allow him to be transferred to Australia. Now, I will say that there's been a lot of a there's been quite a political shift in Australia since this was all litigated before the High Court. So I don't know if it's true anymore that Australia would ignore his needs. I don't think they can get away with it. But this is just to show you some context or to illustrate what is coming because these assurances that we're going to see from the United States government, there will be holes that we can easily poke in them much like you could with the way he would be treated in US custody. Definitely. They're experts at that. So we'll definitely be seeing that. But in this case where we just received this ruling that has some openings, some closed doors, what are the options before Assange's legal team and what are going to be the next steps with his case? If he has not given an appeal hearing, which is I think possible, what we have is on May 20th. That's the date you can circle on the calendar for those who are specifically interested in Julian Assange's plight as one of the most well-known political prisoners in the world at this point. Watch your calendar on May 20th. There will be a hearing on these so-called assurances. And then after that, if the High Court says there will not be a further appeal, he has no more options in the UK legal system. He then turns to the European Court of Human Rights and he makes a petition. It's not guaranteed that he will have a hearing and that they will review it. They get somewhere around 60 or 70 petitions in any given year and they only grant a handful. That's my understanding. So they might decide that they don't want to take it up. And there are some political issues going on that are worth just mentioning very, very briefly here, which is that Britain with Brexit and the way that they have turned right wing, they do not particularly want to be beholden to the European Court of Human Rights any longer. And it is possible that the European Court may recognize that they don't want to test the patience of the UK government and grant Julian Assange a hearing because it could cost them. It could mean that Britain pulls out of the European Court of Human Rights or no longer wants to abide by this European Convention on Human Rights. And in that case, we could see Julian Assange once again sacrificed because the priority is the relationship between the US and the UK or the priority is the politics of the UK government, what the UK government wants. And so that's something to consider. But as it plays out, the European Court of Human Rights is the last place that Julian Assange can turn before he would be put on a plane to the United States and face trial. And so the call to action is very easy. It's very simple. The call to action is that Joe Biden and the Justice Department must drop charges against Julian Assange. If they mean anything they say about press freedom and democracy and upholding human rights, they must listen to the condemnation from civil liberties, human rights and press freedom organizations from around the world and drop the charges against Julian Assange. They must recognize that they are making the world more unsafe for journalists by prosecuting Julian Assange. The same reasons why they want Evan Gurskiewicz to be freed from a Russian prison. He's a Wall Street Journal reporter who is there under detention. The same reasons why they want him freed are the same reasons why they must free Julian Assange. They can't have it both ways. Either Julian Assange is supposed to be prosecuted and then therefore there is nothing wrong with Russian President Vladimir Putin keeping a US reporter in detention for engaging in journalism. Or it is unjust for both of them to be kept in detention and they must be freed. So anything that the US government advocates about Julian Assange or about Evan Gurskiewicz right now, it's called into question by their treatment of Julian Assange. And it's up to us to communicate and get more of the politicians in the United States engaged. And don't dismiss that. Don't just write it off cynically as we can't do it because that is allowing Julian Assange to be sacrificed. We were able to spare Julian, a spare Chelsea Manning. She was set free. She only served six or seven months of her sentence in a military prison because there was pressure that was building up within the system to free her and to show her mercy. And that's the same sort of thing we need from Congress and from within the US government right now. And it can come from telling members of the House that there is a resolution that they can sign on to. It basically says if you support freedom of the press, then as follows, you must ask and demand that the Justice Department drop the charges against Julian Assange. It's called HR 934. It's what Gabriel Shipton, his brother is asking for. It's what Stella Assange is asking for. It's what the Assange Defense Committee is asking for. It's what everyone involved in this fight has to demand because it is the most simplest way to express through a resolution that something has to be done to end this case right now. Well, we'll definitely be following along in the coming weeks. These weeks are going to be decisive. As you said, the struggle to free Julian Assange continues. Your work is so important in covering all of these legal in and outs and really bringing to light the political nature of this case against Julian Assange. I think anyone who's not following your work definitely must now, if you want to know, be up to date on everything that's happening with the fight for press freedom, with the fight to free Assange, definitely follow Kevin and all of his amazing work. Kevin, thank you so much for joining us and giving us this very informative update. And we'll hopefully see you back soon. Thank you.