 We at TNT of course have followed the trials of Julian Assange including reporting live from the Royal Courts of Justice in February. Many were dismayed to say the least by the recent judgement in which Julian had sought to be given leave to appeal extradition to the US. The judgement was bizarre and twisted at best and gave America three weeks to provide the High Court with assurances that they won't harm Julian because of course we'll believe them. I was joined last Friday by Julian's father John Shipton. He said that we are watching death in slow motion which is really a horrendous thought for a father to have to say about their son but as he pointed out it's been 15 years. John talked about the sheer volume of court hearings that his son has been through and I am delighted today to be joined by someone who's been there. Witness some of the proceedings first-hand in fact Kathy Vogan from Consortium News. Kathy good morning you're an executive producer at Consortium and you're here to join us and talk through some really important witness statements that you have observed as well as other things. Good morning to you. Good morning Sonja. Well the one that you noticed was not a witness statement of course this time and this was just about the renewal appeal decision or should be called an adjournment. More adjournment. We'll decide later. They found reasons to let Julian go and they should have just said yes or no. We accept or we deny his right to appeal but they decided to give the Americans another shot at these assurances and this is the second round there have been assurances already which don't assure at all but the testimony that you're referring to was from Maureen Baird and Maureen Baird was an administrator of special administrative measures for the Bureau of Prisons and that is the most awful form of solitary confinement absolutely permanent 24 hours a day. She herself makes comments about that that she doesn't know how they continue to get away with it because it is absolute torture for these people it's a tiny little cell with nothing in there they've got nothing to do and they never get out even if they get to do a little bit of exercise it's in a very similar room that's just next to their cell and so basically they're not going to see any more human beings except perhaps eyes in the door or hand coming through a slit in the door to give them food for the rest of their days it's been described as a metal shoebox and so she was one of the people in the extradition hearing there were four main witnesses this was the 2020 extradition hearing wasn't it because so this was the affidavits right and obviously bed was the former special administrative administrator so the way she also testified in court they got her in and it was really it was really in reexamination by Mark Summers who we know he was there at this last appeal hearing it was in reexamination that the really terrible answer the answer that she gave made my heart sink because what he asked her was who decides who goes under these special administrative measures is it the judges this is the bureau prisons no it's the CIA and the CIA are literally together with the FBI are being accused of wanting to kidnap this man to harm this man I mean it's just an actually egregious situation now let me just let me just get position myself here this was the hearing right where they were trying to prove that the name Nathaniel Frank was Assange is that correct no that was you're talking about the testimony and affidavits from Patrick Ella who was a forensic examiner he was a supervisor and he said in court that he was not even asked to prove there was no proof of who Chelsea Manning was talking to she never she never said who she was talking to she didn't know who she was talking to it was someone at WikiLeaks but it could have been anyone of half a dozen different people and the strange thing is that Ella said that the US didn't even ask him to prove who this Nathaniel Frank character was at the other end that name is actually coming from Manning the email address that was associated with was the actual username was press association so nobody knows who that is but it's just been stated so often that that person is Assange and they're just putting it in and and even Ella did it himself and right at the end Mark Summers said excuse me but you just said that that was you said Assange and he said oh my goodness no absolutely there is I have no idea who it was so that wasn't Assange this is exactly why it's so important yeah yeah no I hear you this is exactly why it's so important though to be able to talk to you talk to you directly so we get you know your first person experience because this is a story that's filtered down through the years right and and they still like to trot it out don't they look Kathy let us go let's pick up some quick news headlines and we'll be right back this is very interesting censorship to propaganda gone mad listen to TNT radio and get the news and views direct from our expert presenters and commentators anywhere you go ask Alexa or Google to play TNT radio or download the TNT radio app for free from the App Store or Google Play today's news talk this is TNT radio we are here with Kathy Vogan it's absolutely wonderful because Kathy was has been there she's been at some of these insane court hearings to do with Julian Assange and it's so wonderful because she's literally myth busting in real time and I think that's so important around this case because a lot of it is about subterfuge isn't it Kathy making people believe that this man is something that he's not and what you've just said immediately it just nails an issue and another issue that I think is really important for you to nail because you've drawn it to my attention and we need to draw it to the attention of our viewers and that is 0.210 on on the judgment right talk to us about it well 210 is about it relates to the CIA's kidnap or kill plot and the judges comment that this is certainly terrible things and certainly enough to block an extradition but they couldn't see anything that absolutely connected that with the proceedings and so the rationale was well yes there was this threat of kidnap or kill by the CIA but if we just hand him over so that he's in the custody of the justice system then that threat of kidnap or kill falls away but the vital point that they are missing is that when he's handed over then of course it is the CIA that determines this terrible regime of solitary confinement the metal shoebox for the rest of his days it's the CIA that decides so it's the you couldn't get a better example of what they call fulfillment and that is handing back a refugee to the prosecutors absolutely shocking stuff isn't it Kathy who talked about the conditions being a fate worse than death well that was a prison warden a former prison warden called Robert Hood and he is mentioned by one of the four expert witnesses Joel Sickler and he said in fact the full quote from him is that it is a fate worse than death not fit for humanity special administrative measures he is talking to because these people go mad they go absolutely mad they have no stimulation whatsoever they're only allowed one phone call for 15 minutes per month to nominated family member it's monitored and they're not allowed to say anything you know that they lose their privileges if they say anything there's a terrible story I mean I I don't need to go into too much detail it's awful but John Shipton was right when he said we're witnessing a slow death here of his son wasn't he he's absolutely right well already he's in Belmont she's in conditions of not quite solitary because he's got his well yes it's about 23 hours a day from what I've heard but the thing is Stella and the children can visit him but you rip somebody away from their country and you know it'd be very very difficult apparently it is very difficult even for family members to visit somebody who's being held in Sam's now the very first assurance that came because that was a bar to extradition Julian was found to be likely to commit suicide if that was the fate that he was facing but the US gave an assurance and said no he won't go to ADX prison under Sam's unless there's where they put the caveat in unless he then does something to warrant such measures and that's where the CIA can say haha he looked at that prison guard the wrong way now he's going to get Sam's I mean is it that loose is it that subjective well you know we heard another case David Mendoza and there was a condition he was Spanish and the condition is that Spain doesn't want to separate people from their families so the condition for his extradition he committed some acts of fraud wasn't a violent man and US wanted him and Spain said alright but you've got to send him back well it was over a decade before they got him they reneged on that loose of course and in that case there was a contract between Spain and the United States that he had also signed there were three signatures on it they photoshopped out his signature but finally he had to sue Spain and he went to the Supreme Court twice he won both times and Spain they came to the point that Spain threatened that they weren't going to process any more extradition hearings if they didn't send back David Mendoza and finally but the US still took a bit of time but finally they got him back but it was over a decade and he was they were supposed to be with his family see his children grow up and be sent back straight away I mean this is really scary stuff I would be extremely scared if I was you know related to Julian at this stage because the reason why it's absolutely relevant what you're talking about from the 2020 hearings in terms of the testimonies of these prison experts is it because we're kind of back there again aren't we we're literally contemplating at this stage in a most awful political court case but we are contemplating putting this man into the hands of people who we cannot trust him with right well actually I would say that we've come a little bit further because Julian's article 10 writes so that's for freedom of speech which is supposed to be equivalent to the First Amendment in America right protects freedom of speech it's the crown jewel of their Constitution so in the original ruling the only ground that he won on and wasn't extradited on was health grounds but now there is concern and that his freedom of speech will not be protected this is the ruling that we've just seen that he would be prejudiced against in the courtroom because he is foreign national so his article 7 writes are unlikely to be protected that's about foreseeability of a crime you've got to know some things the crime that equates to article 5 in the US Constitution and finally there's this business of the death penalty now we didn't get anywhere with you know these article 10 with Judge Baraitza and certainly with Justice Swift he dismissed everything but these two are very senior judges and they are gravely concerned and rightly so because on June 29th 2020 there was a ruling by Judge Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court and this was the case of USA versus open society and it was about giving money to countries but they were kind of gagged they couldn't criticize the US and they said well that violates our First Amendment rights and and the ruling from Kavanaugh is you don't have any First Amendment rights and it is a matter of long-established law that foreign nationals outside the territory of the United States are not protected at all by the United States Constitution so that's that makes it really really difficult for the Americans to actually give an assurance that he will be protected by the First Amendment and not prejudiced against because he is a foreigner an Australian and in fact that's interesting that's interesting that puts it in a slightly more positive light actually yes yes that is very interesting the death penalty they've been really splitting hairs and the decision they said well you know it could be imposed but this other assurance that you can go surface sentence and eventually it be applies for it in Australia that you know that this death penalty threat is against the spirit of that assurance so this was Ben Watson Casey trying to argue but the judges didn't really wear that they said well maybe that would stop a death penalty from being carried out but it certainly wouldn't stop the threat of a death penalty being imposed now go figure the difference between the two but they really they're really sticking on well I mean it's usually a blanket decision of black and white matter of law there's a threat if there's even a threat of the death penalty being imposed Britain does not extradite and right exactly listen Kathy before you leave us today I mean given your knowledge and understanding of this case and what you've witnessed first hand any idea what may be the outcome over the next couple of weeks well I think that the US may have a go at giving assurances if they don't give assurances then Julian's appeal goes ahead we don't know when that will be but if they do give assurances then both parties see that's the other thing the defence because of the timing of the previous assurances they never got to challenge them in court but that has changed now and that's probably because of a decision a a a versus the home secretary and that's to do with the deportation of those refugees to Rwanda that the home secretary it's not home secretary's business to to tell everybody if a country is safe that must be right in court and so even though it's not being explicitly stated it seems to be that that's what is happening so they will have a debate about it that they're both sides are invited to make submissions but that would mainly be from the defense and the defense will surely find problems with these promises promises that's it let's indeed hope so Kathy come back and join me please over the next few weeks when we get the the verdict the outcome of this and what American do really appreciate your input on this issue it's so vital that we keep the the heat on this situation everybody this is Kathy Vogan she is from consortium news and she's been giving us a brilliant insight on what has been happening throughout these various trials to do with junior Nassange will be right back