 Live season four, episode four has hope run out for Assange. I'm Joe Lawyer, editor-in-chief of Consortium News. And I'm Elizabeth Boss. Julian Assange, the imprisoned publisher of WikiLeaks is running out of options to avoid extradition to the United States. UK Supreme Court this week refused his petition to appeal a high court ruling that cleared the way to send him to stand trial in Alexandria, Virginia. Assange is accused of committing espionage by publishing accurate information that revealed U.S. crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. He faces up to 175 years in a U.S. dungeon. Assange had won his case to bar extradition in a magistrates court in London in January, 2021. The judge who sided with the U.S. on every point of law said, however, that he was too suicidal and U.S. prisons were too harsh to send him to the U.S. After losing his case, the U.S. made diplomatic assurances to Britain that Assange would receive adequate healthcare and would not be put under draconian special administrative measures or SAMS in a U.S. prison. Based on those assurances, the U.S. appealed the district judge's decision not to extradite. They appealed to the high court of England and Wales. The high court did not dispute the lower court ruling at all that Assange was too sick to extradite, but to wipe that all away exclusively on the strength of U.S. promises and allowed the extradition to go ahead. The high court didn't doubt that U.S. prisons were horrible. It didn't doubt that Assange was too suicidal to be sent there. It just believed that the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a say in national security cases and imprisonment, that they would all treat Assange humanely. Assange's lawyers protested that those American assurances should have been presented during the lower court hearing so that they could have challenged them. Instead, the high court accepted the promises unchallenged. The petition for appeal that Assange filed with the Supreme Court did not challenge the credibility of the U.S. promises, which a British court would be very unlikely to question, but rather the law on the timing of when those assurances should have been submitted. In other words, during the lower court hearing and not afterwards. Even on those very narrow grounds, the Supreme Court rejected the petition, saying it did not rise to a point of law of sufficient public interest. The case was sent to Home Secretary Priti Patel. Assange has four weeks to make submissions to Patel to persuade her not to send him to Alexandria. If Patel rejects Assange's arguments, there is every indication that, and there is every indication that she will, she will send the case to back to the magistrates court where it began to execute the extradition. It is at that point that Assange's team can launch a cross appeal to the high court to challenge all of the points of law that the lower court judge agreed with when she decided not to extradite Assange solely on the basis of his health and the conditions of U.S. prisons. If the high court rejects to hear the cross appeal, Assange's last stand is the European Court of Human Rights. But even if that court ruled in his favor, Britain may well ignore its decision as it is up to member states of the Council of Europe to enforce rulings themselves. We begin our show with Alexander McCorris in London. He's a British legal analyst and editor of the Duran. Alexander, welcome very much to the program. You have a lot of experience in this regard, having worked at the World Courts of Justice for such a extended period. I'd like to know your reaction when you heard the Supreme Court's decision not to accept the petition to appeal. What does this tell us about the Supreme Court's behavior in this case and how that bodes for the future of extradition cases like this one? I think you've actually identified what is for me one of the most serious issues. Firstly, I think this is a very wrong decision in relation to Assange's own case. Bear in mind that the high court had itself accepted that there was an arguable point that the Supreme Court could consider and should consider and arguably should consider. But that's Assange. The problem is that what the Supreme Court has now done by saying that there is no arguable point of law on when assurances can be accepted from a foreign state seeking extradition, is that it now means that the decision of the high court that assurances can be provided at any time is now effectively law. Now that has very serious implications. It means that somebody who's extradition is being sought can fight for weeks, months to defend an extradition case. They can argue extensively all the points before the lower court. And then even after they've won, as Assange did, the country that he's seeking extradition can then take into account all of the reasons that the court gave for refusing extradition and can then simply give assurances in the confident expectation that those assurances will be accepted. There is a particular aspect to this case also, which I find especially troubling because if the assurances had been provided to the lower court, to Judge Baritza in the Magistrate School, we would surely have had two or three weeks of argument about the assurances. They would have been, the Assange's lawyers would have had a good opportunity to go through all of the various points that the United States government was making to respond to them. Expert witnesses could have been called. We could have had a proper investigation as to whether or not these assurances actually mean very much in terms of American practice. I've been told by people who I trust that the United States doesn't consider itself to be bound to any extensive degree by the assurances it gives when it seeks extradition. So this could have been an ought to have been argued out and considered properly. Instead, what has happened is that the High Court has accepted these assurances, accepted these assurances at the back end of a two day appeal hearing, the greater part of which was devoted to other issues and without any real examination of the assurances having actually been made. It's bad enough that we now have a decision that they can be accepted at any time, but the High Court, it seems to me, instead of just accepting the assurances, if that is what it intended to do, should have arranged a hearing, properly speaking, in the Magistrate's Court, for the Magistrate's Court, for the judge in the Magistrate's Court to decide whether those assurances really answered her concerns. And the High Court didn't do that. And incredibly to my mind, the Supreme Court hasn't said that it should have done so either. So I think this is an extremely bad decision in relation to the Assange case. I think this is an extremely bad decision in terms of extradition law in Britain, because it essentially says assurances can be given at any time, and there is no right to a proper hearing in which you can actually test those assurances and argue before the Court that those assurances aren't really what they seem. And we're now landed with all of this, and Assange's position obviously has been made very, very difficult, but so has the position of anybody else who faces requests from extradition, for extradition, certainly from the United States, but arguably from any other country. Alexander, I have to say, I was surprised that the Supreme Court did not take the case for two reasons. One, I thought they wanted to continue to go through the motions, to show the world that they were giving Assange his due process, that even if they had made up their own minds, they had to show that. And the second reason is I thought because it was on such a narrow ground about a technical issue of when the assurances need to be filed in a process, rather than the Court having to look at the substance of the assurances, which they probably would never go against an American diplomatic assurance. But if they were only being asked this technical question that has, as you just explained, such a strong bearing on future extradition cases, my question is to you, were you surprised that they didn't take the case? I was extremely surprised that they didn't take the case. I have to say, I think it's an application of responsibility by the Supreme Court. The High Court clearly expected that the Supreme Court would take the case. And that's the High Court that has made this decision, which I have so many concerns about. And it seems to me this is exactly what the Supreme Court is for. I think the Supreme Court, as you rightly said, would not have gone into the details of the assurances. I think that they could argue, and I think argue properly that that's not their job. They're not a trial court. They're not there to sift through the assurances. But this was an important issue about when assurances can be provided, whether it really is possible for a state seeking extradition to provide assurances at any time, even after a decision has gone against it. That was precisely the sort of issue that the Supreme Court, it seems to me, is constituted to look at. And I have to say, I mean, to say that I was surprised that it refused to look at that question, that is an understatement. I was astonished that they didn't do it. It seems to me an abdication of responsibility, a running away, if you like, from a difficult topic, one that I suspect the Supreme Court feels extremely uncomfortable dealing with, obviously, because this is the United States and a case of enormous political significance. And I think they were very, very nervous to get involved in something like this. But ultimately, it seems to me, it is their job. And the result is that they've done injustice in this case, which is very bad, but they've also set or allowed a precedent to be established, which is now, of course, law. I mean, precedents essentially mean that this is now the law, which is going to have extremely bad consequences in future cases. So I agree with you completely. I was astonished. I too was expecting that they would at least look at this question and come to a decision, even if it had been a decision, by the way that I didn't agree with, that they would simply say that there was no arguable point of law. I have to say I was astonished by, and very, very, very dismayed by. So you think that the reasoning that went into their refusal to look at it was basically that they just felt it was too much of a political hot potato that they didn't want to touch or do you think there was anything more to it? I think it was, I am absolutely thinking, it was a political hot potato they didn't want to touch. I'm sorry to say it straightforwardly. I mean, no doubt if you were to get the three law, the three justices, the three Supreme Court justices aside and they would tell you, well, of course, this is actually well-established. It is not well-established. The High Court itself admitted that it had not been well-established. It had certainly not been well-established at the level of the Supreme Court and previously of the House of Lords. So the function of the Supreme Court in the British system is to sort out, sift out what the law is, say, well, this has been the pattern, this has been the practice in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal where this is our view and we are the Supreme Court and it is our view ultimately that is the determining one. And I mean, they do that repeatedly. They did that very recently in a case of privacy law which I take a strong interest in. There's been a lot of decisions in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal on privacy law issues over the last, well, last decade or so. And again, it had never been looked at by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, yes, we've looked at this and we think that what the High Court and the Court of Appeal have been doing in those privacy cases is right. That's their function. Sometimes they will say it's wrong and that's also their function but that is their function in the British system. They are ultimately not so much a court of appeal. They are caught that ultimately has supervision over the development of the law in Britain. And for them to say that there's no arguable issue in a case like this looks to me an abdication and for them to say that this is not a matter of great public interest when the entire world is interested in this particular case. And it also relates to a specific issue of extradition law which is to put it mildly of public interest. Well, for them to say that there's no great issue of law of public interest. I found that absolutely staggering and a complete abdication. So that only leaves for me the point that this was clearly a political hot potato that they didn't want to touch. So can you walk us through for a moment assuming that pretty Patel approves extradition and I think we can all assume that that's what's gonna happen. Exactly how quickly could we see Assange extradited? He would have, would he have an ability to appeal at the lower court if rates are also approves extradition there? How will that work going forward? Yes, I think, I mean, this has been much discussed about whether they're going to bring across appeal but I presume they will. I mean, all the indications until fairly recently are that they will. So pretty Patel makes a decision and I suspect she's going to make that decision very quickly. Probably next week, you know, perhaps sooner she'll send it back to the magistrate's court. The magistrate's court will then have to convene a hearing that it could take a little while at that hearing they can put up, they can then put forward their proper objections and we'll see whether or not that goes to, whether that goes to the high court and remember the high court has to decide whether or not to grant permission to appeal. They granted permission to appeal to the United States. Given the flow of decisions, I wonder whether they will grant permission to appeal to Assange and be quite realistic about this. I'm worried that they won't but, you know, if they do grant permission to appeal, perhaps another year of litigation in Britain and if they don't grant permission to appeal, well, I would have thought that Assange will be heading to the United States sometime in the late summer autumn. Alexander, you said he should could pretty Patel can decide next week, but the- No, you're quite right. I should take that back. I think they have four weeks in which to make submissions. So I take that back. That's an error. But I think as soon as he's brought in the submissions, I think pretty Patel will make the decision very quickly. Okay, well, she could do it next week. If they put the submissions in this week, then she could decide next week. Well, indeed. What you described really is, I mean, reckless on the part of the Supreme Court in that for one case alone, because I thought it was super political that they would decide to change the face of extradition law in the United Kingdom, basically. Yes, yes. For all other cases. Now I'm gonna ask you something, yes? I mean, you're absolutely right. Okay, now this might be a little off the wall here, but you were often spoken about how public opinion or political atmosphere affects the way courts behave. So given the political atmosphere we're in right now and that Assange himself has been linked without evidence, without proof to Russia. Well, is the political climate, now did that give cover to the Supreme Court too? And there's a lot of attention off of Assange's case completely, whatever attention there was. And onto Ukraine, of course, would that, could that have played any role or am I just, I am speculating, but is it a reasonable speculation? It is an entirely reasonable speculation. Let's say straightforwardly, the effect of the Ukrainian crisis has been exactly as you said, it's people are not interested in Assange, the news, the media barely covers this at the moment, people are not thinking or talking about Assange at the moment, everybody's eyes are on Ukraine. Now, whether the Supreme Court made this decision, knowing that attention was focused away on Ukraine, and as I said, it's a controversial decision, whether they did that, well, I have no idea. They of course would say not, no, they would say that, you know, they don't do that, that this is, this follows their own practices, their own procedures, that they would want to get a decision like this out as soon as possible. So they would deny it. I've no way of going behind that denial but the effect is that of course, with all the attention on Ukraine, what might have been a very controversial decision, one that people would have, many people would have criticized, is not being criticized, is not even being discussed or commented upon. And if you take a suspicious view of this, and I can completely understand why you would, given the way in which this case has been conducted all along, then I think many people would say, well, this is not a coincidence, it is not chance. Me, take a suspicious view, I think you're talking about someone else, but not even consortium news has not been covering Asanja that much until this happened. I'm gonna bring in the second Greg Barnes who is an Asanja attorney who lives in Tasmania, they happen to have him come. But Alexander, one last question for you and then a few guys can interact, that would be terrific. What does this mean about British justice, what this decision, other than the specifics that we discussed overall? What did you conclude from this? Well, here I have to say, this is obviously something that I feel about because I was working in this system for 12 years in the Royal Courts of Justice. I mean, I'm deeply disappointed and very dejected by this outcome. I mean, I think that the outcome is completely wrong. And we have repeated assurances in Britain that the court system is completely above politics. There was that famous comment all the way back in the 17th century by Chief Justice Cook to the King's officials, how so ever high you stand, the law is above you, that we always do what is legally right, that we don't let political pressures determine our decisions. Well, I have to say that I'm afraid after this decision, I have to accept that, I've come around to the view that this is a myth because it seems to me a profoundly political decision in a profoundly political case. And I find that very, very disappointing and I personally feel very let down. Well, I look at people in the 17th century were much shorter than they are today. So the law may have been over their heads then. Greg, Greg Barnes, thank you for joining us. Give us your view from Tasmania about the decision of the Supreme Court. How did you react to it? I don't think we're hearing them. We're not hearing you. We're trying to get Greg unmuted here. Elizabeth, if you had another question, maybe if I would run over that. Okay, yes, yes, we got you now. Thank you, Greg. Did you hear my question? I hear your question. And my apologies. It's late at night. I'll put it down to that and that's Friday. Look, I think that the view in Australia amongst my colleagues was that it was a disappointing decision for the reasons Alexander has mentioned, which is that it was an opportunity, I think, to test out a proposition that was put in extradition law, which is not normally put. And that is that, look, you can lose an extradition case and then appeal it and say, oh, well, actually, we've changed our position now and we're happy to give you some assurances. In fact, it's funny because I'm just up at a criminal defense lawyers conference in Brisbane on the Gold Coast, just south of Brisbane in Queensland in Australia. And this question came up today in a broader context. And there was some discussion about it. So, you know, this is a very political case. There's no doubt that what the United States have done in this case is unusual in the sense that normally with an extradition case, what happens is that governments don't change their positions, but what they were allowed to do in this case was essentially a brick up a wall that was collapsing. And then, of course, that being unusual, one would have thought the UK Supreme Court would be interested in it. I mean, I'd have to say in Australia, the High Court here in Australia, which is the equivalent, which in recent years has been fairly conservative, but I think they probably would have taken that case simply because it does change, as Ernest says, extradition law. And so from that perspective, it's, you know, I think most lawyers would say disappointing because it was an opportunity to really test the law in this area. What does this mean now for Drillian Assange? I mean, the title of our program is, Is He Running Out of Hope? Is he? Great, great. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, there will be a cross appeal. This matter will continue to be litigated, but at the end of the day, this is a political case. Extradition cases are often quite political. And this case is capable of political resolution tomorrow. You know, we saw in Australia the case of David Hicks and a reminder to your viewers, Hicks was an Australian who found himself training with El Qaeda allegedly in Afghanistan. He was taken to Montanamo Bay he was taken to the usual torture practices of that terrible place. Then there were a series of legal maneuvers. And at the end of the day, what happened was there was political pressure on the Australian government who then went to the United States and said, we want to bring him back to Australia. And that's what happened. So the law in the end was put to one side in the politics world. We've got an election coming up in Australia fairly shortly. And talking with Julian's father and others and Julian's supporters in Australia, we're certainly going to be agitating in this election. There's a chance of a change of government in Australia to the Labour Party led by Anthony Albanese, which is a sort of center left party. Albanese interestingly recently said about the Assange case that needed quick resolution, which was actually a step forward in the sense that Labour has always been pretty cautious about education. There've been some people in the Labour Party in Australia who haven't supported Assange. So there's some optimism that if the Labour Party is elected to government and the Prime Minister gets a phone call from Joe Biden, which he will in his very first few days in office, that this matter might be raised and with a view to trying to resolve it. Because at the end of the day, I don't see this matter being resolved legally in any quick time, but it could be resolved politically and it could be resolved politically very quickly. Elizabeth, if you have a question for Greg. Yeah, I was going to ask you about the kind of continuing that theme of the politics overriding the legal situation. I mean, could you argue that from the opposite direction where you have the fact that we've got Biden in office now in the US, we've got the fact of most of the Democratic Party viewing Assange as such an evil figure for his role in 2016. You've got all of that political baggage that has nothing to do with the charges against him. Do you think that that kind of overrides the potential political hope in Australia? It's a very good question, Elizabeth. And it's certainly a key factor. I think what would drive this decision would be simply the strength of the alliance between Australia and the United States. I mean, the United States hasn't got a more reliable ally for good or for worse, for worse being distinct in Australia. And it would be a gesture by the United, by Biden saying, we really appreciate your support. We really appreciate the way you just lockstep with us in relation to China and living in the Indian, sorry, the Pacific region. And look, yep, I don't really wanna do this and I'm gonna get pushed back on this, but look, I'm happy to resolve it. And a resolution might involve, and I don't speak for Julian here, so I might be making this very clear and I don't speak for the legal team in London, but the sort of resolution that you sometimes get, and we certainly got in hicks, was, look, he's gonna have to play something. He'll get a sentence of two to three years, but he can serve the entire sentence in Australia near his family. That's what happened in Hicks. Hicks didn't come back to Australia, he was a free man, he came back and did a relatively short period of time, I think actually less than a year in a prison in South Australia. So it would be Elizabeth, if Biden got enough pressure from an Australian government to say, hey, we really need this to happen, this will really help us with domestic political pressure. Of course, Greg, David Hicks is not Julian Assange. No, very different case, very different case, but I think the point, the only point I'd make is that domestic political pressure can sometimes really focus politics of a situation, and particularly in Australia. I mean, Hicks in a way, while he was not Assange, in a way he was much less significant, but in a way he was also very significant because of course he was an Australian in his sort of heightened partisanship and the hysteria of the war on terror. And this was an Australian who'd been filmed in Afghanistan with the evil enemy. So in that sense, this was a difficult issue for the United States and the Australian government, but it's a different case, I accept that. I think the other issue with Assange is that he has a strong supporter group in the Australian Parliament. He has 29 members of the Australian Parliament who are members of the, and there are one or two others in the current government who've now said that they are supporting Assange. And some of them are in marginal seats, so seats that could swing at this election to the Labour Party. So I think over the next couple of months there'll be some much more intensive pressure coming on, but I just think, I mean, I'm a lawyer, but I think that unless there's a political resolution, this litigation and Alexander will know better than me will go on and on. If not in the UK, then into the European court system and join Assange as a human being, his life is in jeopardy because of the extraordinarily poor conditions in which he is forced to endure. Alexander, I wanted to ask you about the European Court of Human Rights. My understanding is that even if they're ruled in Assange's favour, there really isn't an enforcement mix up to the members of the Council of Europe to enforce that. But before you add to that, there's anything you want to say about what Greg is just, I know you have to leave, so if you could. Well, I wanted to say, first of all, that I'm very, very impressed to learn that there is a group of MPs in the Australian Parliament who are actually taking this case seriously and who are arguing on behalf of Assange. That has been one of the fundamental problems here in Britain. We have never seen to any significant degree any group of MPs. We've had isolated figures. We've had one or two MPs who've spoken out on behalf of Assange, but we've never had an actual group, a block of them, that actually have campaigned on Assange's behalf who said that what is happening is wrong. And that may change the political calculus in Australia, it's always for me been one of the great problems in Britain and that the political system has never been, there's no part of the political system that matters in Britain has ever really been interested or supportive of Assange in this case. So if that's different in Australia, then I would say that is a hopeful sign. I have to say straight away, I don't hold much hope of any legal process in Britain. I think if there's a cross appeal, after all that's happened, I think to expect that the High Court would change its position or that the Supreme Court would, I think that's hopeless. I'm far from sure now that it would even get permission to appeal. So I wouldn't place many reliances or hopes on this. In relation to the European Court of Human Rights, I think the first thing to say is that an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights does not come with any stay of enforcement. So the fact that he's appealed to the European Court of Human Rights doesn't mean that the British would be prevented from extraditing him. They might still extradite him, even whilst that process was still ongoing. Now, there would in theory be consequences if they did that, especially if the European Court of Human Rights were to come back and say that the decision was wrong. But at best, that would be years away. And by that point, I have to say, I think everything would have been decided in the United States. And I don't really think that is a very meaningful process to say it frankly. I mean, it would require the British to agree to wait until the European Court of Human Rights made its decision. That would take years. He would presumably still be in Belmarsh through all that time. And I'm not convinced the British would be prepared to wait that long. Now, the European Court of Human Rights does have an expedited process which they did try to use in the Navalny case last year, by the way. But would they be prepared to do that in a Sanchez case? I'm again, not certain. So I think in theory, the European Court of Human Rights process might have some results. I mean, you could argue if you looked at it from pure human rights law that it might succeed. I don't really think it has much practical effect actually. I think that if the decision goes against him with this cross appeal, I have to say I think that's for all practical purposes the end of the line. Yes, a depressing note. Greg, what leverage does Australia have over the United States? I mean, they might put pressure they can call every day to the White House but they better have some kind of leverage that they could tell Biden we might not do this if you don't send a sound spread. Yeah, no, it's again a very good question. There's a fair bit of leverage in this sense that Australia is the key ally along with Japan and less so India in the containment of China. And Australia is the reliable deputy sheriff in the region signed up to walk us the new security arrangement allowed US troops to be stationed in Darwin and North of the country. A key and resolute supporter and ally of the containment strategy devised by the Obama administration carried on now by Biden. So there is leverage. There's no doubt about that. There is leverage. And having said that, there is a bit of a tendency in Australia again. But if the United States says no to the matter, it would require and it would also require whether it's Scott Morrison being re-elected or Anthony Albanese as new prime minister to use some political capital. I gotta say as a former political advisor here, I don't see a lot of downside for an Australian prime minister standing up for a sange and demanding that he be able to return to Australia. But I don't see a lot of downside. And the reason I don't see a lot of downside is most Australians, this issue has gone on so long now. Most Australians don't really know where it's at. And the ones that do care are essentially on site because they see this even journalists, I know who aren't a sange supporters and thought what he did was reckless and that he's not really a journalist. They now say it's just gone on too long. It is a freedom of speech issue. And it's important that the United States not be able to get away with extra territorial reach of its laws. So to the extent that a government acted on this, there's not gonna be a lot of political pushback. So domestically, it's not really an issue. It's not a hot button issue. The pushback, the issue will be, do they wanna use political capital in Washington on this particular issue as opposed to others? I think that's the issue. It does, the Australian government does have leverage but doesn't wanna use that political capital on the sange issue. Now, they might, if during the context of this election campaign, the government, which is facing an uphill battle to retain office, feels that it's under pressure in a couple of key seats, two or three key seats, where the sange issue actually is important. I mean, the sange support base in Australia is essentially well educated upper middle class, the professional classes. And in that sense, there's seats, they have seats in those demographics, which are marginal. Prussia comes on the sitting MPs there. They may go to Morrison and say, as current prime minister, you gotta do something about this. So there are a whole lot of those factors in play. Sorry, Greg, Alexander has to leave us to do another program, any final words from the Alexander about this. Can you please unmute? I'm actually mildly encouraged because I had had some hopes about the legal process in Britain, but I've never really thought that, I don't think anymore that it's going to have any kind of outcome. If there is a political movement in Australia and a possibility that the Australian government could resolve this politically, well, that is encouraging. The only thing I've got to say here is that of course that would be a good, that might be a better outcome for a sange himself if he goes to the United States, is convicted, sentenced to two or three years in prison, is sent to Australia, placed in perhaps better conditions in Australia and is then released. So for a sange as a human being, we must never forget there is a human being at the center of all of this. That is perhaps, well, I won't say a good outcome, but a better outcome than, much better outcome on some of the terrible ones we've been hearing. But on the larger issue of freedom of speech, of law, of the use of, or rather the abuse of the Espionage Act, of the development of law in Britain and the United States to make journalism and reporting more and more difficult, well, that is as bad an outcome as any other can be because it means that that whole direction of law continues and is continuing unchecked and unchallenged. So at a human level, I have to see that as a good outcome for a sange. And that's why as I said, I'm mildly encouraged from somebody who obviously cares about freedom of speech, freedom of media issues, the ability of journalists to do their work properly without having the fear that something could be done to them at any time, that they could be extradited to the United States and charged with the Espionage Act there, or if they work in the United States, be exposed to that sort of thing. I don't think that really, what we've just heard is going to resolve any of those problems. And that is a battle that would still have to be fought at some point and still have to be won at some point. And in the meantime, an important part of that battle, an important point in that battle will have been lost. So I think that is something I did want to say. Well, thank you, Alexander, for being with us today. Bye-bye. Elizabeth, do you have any questions for Greg? Sure, yeah, and this one's a little bit less on the legal end of things, but just as a general statement, I wanted to recognize that right around the time that we heard that Assange is, you know, that the High Court wasn't going to hear, the Supreme Court wasn't going to hear an appeal, we also were told that Assange had been allowed, will be allowed to marry Stella Morris in Belmarsh on March 23rd. And I just wanted to comment on the fact and ask you to comment on the fact that this really, this news about the, you know, the not being able to appeal is such a, just throw such a shadow over that news about the wedding and how, what that impact might be on Assange and Stella at a human level and what a shame that is basically. I didn't know if you had any thoughts on that, Greg. Yeah, look, I agree. And I think that the more you personalize this case, the more sympathetic people become and certainly in Australia, that's the view. You know, you have a human being. I mean, you know, I have people, you know, who know, I've been dealing with the Assange case for a long time. They've seen me in the media here, I've had people come up to me in the street, not that often, but occasionally and just say, hey, you know, well done. I don't know much about the issue, but he's got a couple of kids and he's got a partner and you know, there's got to be an endpoint. And I think that's right. And the point that you've just made, you know, that you've got two people getting married, you've got two little kids, you've got a family that's been ripped apart by this process. She humanity should tell you that there has to be an end. And the end is well and truly up and was up some time ago. But you know, it's important to always bring this back, this case back to the fact that we have human beings and human lives involved and families involved. Okay, Greg, I want to thank you for joining us from Brisbane, not from Tasmania. Brisbane today, yeah, that's right. Yeah, it was in fact the same day, I think, that the wedding was announced at the Supreme Court made its decision. Is that right, Louis? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, it was, that's right, yeah. You wonder about these coincidences, I have to say. Anyway, thank you for laying that out. And I thank again, Alexander for coming on and giving us his expertise. So from two different countries, legal minds helping us understand where we're at. It's all not very optimistic if you are a assigned supporter, but there's still some legal way ahead and we're gonna see it play out. So now we're gonna switch to a bunch of prerecorded interviews that we did. And I'm gonna name who we've talked to. And Julian Hill, he's an Australian MP in the federal parliament from the Australian Labor Party. Professor Stuart Reese, he's from the Sydney Peace Foundation, very well known in Australia. Lisa Johnson, a clinical psychologist who will talk about the medical side of this issue along with Bill Hogan, who is a professor of biometric outcomes in Florida. Both of them are members of doctors for Assange, as well as Dr. Arthur Jesterfield Evans. He's an MD, he's a physician and he's a former member of the New South Wales Parliament. So those are three doctors for Assange that will join us. And then Mary Kostakidis, a household name in Australia for how many years on the SPS network as a news presenter. And finally, Alison Brionovsky, who was a retired Australian diplomat spoke with Kathy Vogan. All of these spoke with our producer, Kathy Vogan, by the way. And then we were able to speak with John Pilger very late. We are not able to include that in this broadcast, but shortly after this broadcast is over, we will put out separately our discussion, a brief discussion with John Pilger about the situation with his friend, Julian Assange, who in case he's covered very, very closely being in the courtroom throughout this whole process. So if Kathy, our producer is ready to roll it, I thank again, Elizabeth, our co-host, Alexander in London and Greg in Brisbane. Thanks guys. And joining us, okay. Thank you, bye-bye. Bye. Well, Britain should refuse to extra dot Julian Assange to the U.S. and bring this matter to an end. It is unconscionable that the UK would extradite a vulnerable person at risk of suicide to face an effective death sentence. The court's ruling is disappointing as is their refusal to hear any challenge to somewhat due regarding Julian Assange's treatment. Little to no consideration was given to the detail of his health condition, risks and the need for care. Ultimately, though, as I've said for a long time now, this case is inherently political and needs a political, not illegal resolution. The person who leaked the classified material was pardoned years ago, yet the publisher is facing 175 years in prison. This is a disgraceful fact designed to chill the free media worldwide. Scott Morrison, Australia's Prime Minister, has said nothing, has done nothing to stand up for this Australian citizen. The British High Court's decision not to allow Julian Assange to appeal is simply the latest chapter in years and years of massive cruelty and cowardice by Americans, by the British judiciary and by Australian politicians. The idea of justice is a complete farce. The cruelty seems to be a priority in policies to punish any dissenter, in particular, somebody as brave as Julian Assange who has exposed the murder and mayhem which passes for American foreign policy. My emphasis on cowardice is about the indifference of successive Australian governments to the plight of a significant Australian citizen. If we want just outcome in this case to avoid the extradition to the United States, then Prime Minister Morrison should be on the phone immediately to Boris Johnson in London and to Biden in Washington saying, as Albanese is saying, that enough is enough. Scott, this cruelty, have a smidgen of justice. And in fact, to recall what you've said, Kathy, this is more than enough. Julian Assange should be free. This is a terrible stain in a terrible piece of history and my outrage knows no limits. Look, given the rapid and ongoing deterioration in Julian Assange's health, the US assurances are not only ridiculous and absurd, they're obsolete because they were given for a health situation that's now changed significantly. The question of whether the US can assure immediate medical attention for another stroke or any other sudden acute cardiovascular or neurological event is central to whether they can assure Julian Assange's safety. And if there's any likelihood that he would be held in supermax conditions with no doctors or no guarantee of immediate medical attention should he need it, it's just impossible that his safety could be assured. So the High Court's decision to overturn the judge's decision not to extrate Daya Assange on mental health grounds by virtue of the so-called US assurances and the UK Supreme Court's subsequent refusal to hear a certifiable point of law about those assurances totally evaporates the myth that anyone in the UK judicial system is concerned about the actual health of Julian Assange. I don't believe the UK Supreme Court or the justice system of the UK in any way cares about his mental health, not anymore. Also with the stroke that he had in Belmarsh, now he has a physical component to his health that's quite concerning and we haven't discussed at all at least in the court system. And we're gonna start discussing now whether the US prison system has adequate medical facilities to handle medical emergencies like the stroke. So once again, we're still assuming that Assange's stroke was an ischemic event. And if that's the case and he's at risk for having another one, he may be on some prophylaxis to prevent it from happening again like an aspirin or another anticoagulant drug. But regardless, that's gotta be monitored and he's at risk for having another stroke. And in the medical facilities we heard in the testimony about the Alexandria Detention Center where he'll be held if he, when he's first extradited to the United States, if that happens, God forbid. And there's no physicians, there's no medical facilities. It's not like Belmarsh or they at least have a medical ward, although we heard Belmarsh justify their use of the medical facility as punishment to avoid being culpable for keeping him in solitary confinement. And so I previously objected to them using medical care as punishment. That's anathema. So that's where we stand. And it's a terrible situation. There are other avenues of appeal but he continues to be held in maximum security prison with people convicted of murder. And his physical health is now deteriorating. It's a really awful situation. Julian Assange was assessed from a health point of view assuming that he had mental health issues, which of course related to his incarceration. Obviously that would depress anybody. But there was a suggestion and I gather there's been a diagnosis of stroke which occurred actually during the hearing last time. He wasn't addressed. Issue of stroke of course, the acronym that he publicizes fast, face, speech, time is what it stands for. And the face groups, the arm becomes weak, speech becomes slurred, and the T is the time to get some action. And that action is to get someone in the hospital to do a scan and then assuming that there's a plot which there is in 85% of this sort of case, you give some adequate evidence quickly. And the time recommended is within three hours of the onset, four and a half hours that there's less use and so on beyond that. So going to a prison where he's not being watched he can't get treatment quickly is obviously a very bad thing and a neglect of his medical needs. And it would seem from the description that the small cell in the US where they wanted to put him does not have medical backup that can do this. And therefore it would be dangerous for him to go there. Prisoners should have their rights and should have their health looked after. And I think that's the basic civilized society. Well, I think it's a very bad decision, a bad decision for Julian, but also it's a bad decision for democracy because it's a nod to unquestionable autocratic state power. It implies a trust that hasn't been borne out. We know that the US has reneged several times once to the UK, once to Spain for example, on these assurances. So they really mean very little. And it's quite surprising that the highest court in the land, given that as the case is prepared to remove the only grounds on which extradition was barred on the US's say so. It also, of course, that's a precedent for extradition cases. So they are formulating extradition law in this case. Now, it's bad for Julian because it circumvents the only grounds on which is extradition was barred by the district court judge. And this by the highest court in the UK. It now of course goes to pretty Patel and I don't think anyone really believes that she's going to stop the extradition. I think she will approve extradition and then it will be for Julian's defence team to counter appeal and start the appeals process from the beginning. So they will then appeal on all the grounds that they argued, the other grounds that they argued during the extradition hearing such as press freedom and fair trial. Now, you have to wonder how inclined the high court will be when they hear this appeal to rule in favour of Julian. And I think given what we've heard in the US appeal to the high court, there's really very little hope there. I think the judges are inclined to want to rule in the United States favour. The only thing that stood between Julian and the high court knocking back the assurances, the acceptance of assurances was eczema. Now, that's an indication of their predisposition, I think. So really, while this is going on, it's all about keeping him in jail. It's all about wearing him down, affecting his health and wearing down his defence team, wearing down his supporters, emptying their pockets. And in the meantime, he's held in a high security prison in the UK. He should of course be released on bail. He shouldn't be in prison anyway. The problem though is this, the prosecution has stated that if the assurances aren't accepted, they'll simply issue another indictment. What that says to me is they're not prepared to give up. And should this be barred at any stage, they have a high court stage or supreme court stage, they will simply issue another extradition. So we have to go to the source of this tenacity and who has control here? Who has the power to stop it? The United States government, the UK government. The UK government can bar extradition. The United States government can do better. It can stop seeking it. So then there's no fear that it will all happen again at some point in the future. I don't know that there is much political appetite in Australia or in the United States or in the UK to seek and bring about a political solution. This is a huge problem. And at present, I think one of the problems would be for politicians who might be inclined to otherwise argue in his favor when they had the medical grounds. You see, it provides some safety for them to be arguing when there are medical grounds. When that's taken away, when the UK court has said, no, the US prison system can deal with that, then they have to deal with the hard facts of what this case is all about. And that would take some courage, particularly in the current climate, because we know, well, I know, talking to politicians, despite the fact that this indictment is about 2010, they all bring up Russia. They all bring up Hillary. And at present with the war on in Ukraine, it would be extremely difficult for a politician to argue the case when he or she knows and their colleagues know that there is a feeling among them that somehow he is responsible for Donald Trump. The one thing they don't get is that a journalist's responsibility is to reveal the truth and not to favor any particular candidate. So it would have been the opposite of what he should have done had he not revealed that information before an election. The American electorate were entitled to know that Bernie Sanders had been cheated out of the nomination. But by doing the right thing, he has lost political support. You know, this is what's required at the moment, political support, and that I think is the biggest obstacle. How likely is it that the High Court will refuse a counter-appeal as well and then further down the track, perhaps, ignore the European Court of Human Rights as they try to put a bar on extradition? Well, I think I touched on that earlier when I didn't think the High Court is going to be very inclined to ruin his favor because as we saw from the hearing of the US appeal to the High Court, the only thing that stood between him and a bar to extradition in the view of the Chief Justice of the High Court was eczema. I think they will find, they will look for any excuse to rule in the United States favor. That's the point I was making earlier. So I assume that you mean that they would even refuse to hear it. I'm not a legal expert, but of course, they're the two options. Either they refuse to hear it, which would speed things up somewhat, or they hear it, they go through the motions, which will take many, many months again and knock it back. So I don't think the options are great. I'd like to say that I have faith in the UK's High Court that after what we saw in the US appeal case, I don't. I think what we saw was a very, very strong desire on the part of the judges to rule in the United States favor. And I don't know that they want to set this precedent by ruling in Julian's favor on press freedom and their trial grounds. Yeah, even on the breach of attorney, client privilege, the spying on the defense. That's so generic, isn't it? Yeah, look, the problem is we don't know how it's all going to play out in the courtroom. What I'm trying to say is I think they will find any excuse and give something that we would regard as very small, a lot of weight, if it's going to get them over the line. It might be better if one of the lawyers answered that question. I mean, I can say to you what I think. I think, of course, that's exactly what should happen, particularly after all the evidence that the CIA was plotting to kill him. I just don't feel that it feels to me as if it appears as if irrespective of what the evidence is going to be, they will find a way to knock him back. They will find a way to keep him in jail. I'm afraid, I'm pretty pessimistic about it. I agree, and I think that it would be very embarrassing for the UK and the US to have this counter-appeal heard, in fact, the evidence that will come out. Yes, which is why they may very well refuse. Yeah, supposing that the defense make an application to the European Court of Human Rights, Britain isn't obliged to abide by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. So do you think it's likely that they would just ignore them? Well, we'll just have to see. We'll have to see. I think one of the lawyers might be able to answer that question more in a fuller way, because you've really got to look at previous cases and what can happen. I mean, the United States doesn't pay any attention to human rights courts, so I don't know whether in this case Britain would be inclined to take a leaf out of their book. So the poodle wouldn't do it either. The second question is, possibly on the 11th of May, according to Anthony Albanese, we may have a new government in Australia. Do you think that Labor will make more of an effort, given how many Labor politicians are in the Assange Support Group and Anthony Albanese himself has said enough is enough? I hope so, Kathy. I hope that that's going to be the case. But I think Anthony Albanese had a little bit of Dutch courage because of the decision to barricst tradition on medical grounds. It's just, you know, it's safe. It doesn't offend anyone politically. Say someone can't be extradited, shouldn't be extradited because they're unwell and they're not going to cope and they're going to end up killing themselves. It's a little different to say, well, OK, so the United States are going to have offered assurances that they will ensure that that doesn't happen. So then what's left? What's left are the cold, hard facts, evidence of the CIA trying to kill him of the fact that he won't get a fair trial in the United States because of the state in which the trial is going to be heard, that he'll be sent to a high security prison and held in solitary anyway. He may not be held in SAMS, or they're saying he won't be held in SAMS, but then they can change their minds and depending on something he might say or do in the meantime. So no, I think unless the politician is prepared to offend the United States and let's face it, you know, the offences given we do so much for and with the United States, I don't think it would be such a big deal for the Australian Prime Minister and Australian Labour Prime Minister to say to them, what we would like is for you to drop the charges here because it's sending the wrong signal about who you are and who we are. We are not repressive autocratic regimes. I'm just getting back to that issue of health and eczema. So of course that's Chief Justice Burnett who rejected a comparison with the case of Laurie Love, who was not extradited for health reasons. Since then, well actually on that very day, Julian was having a stroke, a minor stroke, which is often a warning that a major one is on the way. Don't you think that a stroke is much more severe than eczema and couldn't Albanese intervene again on the basis of health, which is terribly degenerated? Yes, well of course you're right. He has had this stroke and that has happened, well that happened while the hearing was being conducted. So it is something that can and should be raised and that may indeed provide the key to having that conversation, being able to have that conversation with the United States and say look, you know, we've been through all this, you've offered assurances, he's now had a stroke. You know, if he dies over there, it's going to be a bad thing for the Australian government because we haven't brought him home and it's not going to look good for you either. And this is the sort of thing that we accuse the Russians of, we accuse the Chinese of, why are we doing it? I hope so. The whole Julian Assange episode, the whole saga has been a complete disgrace for Australia, not only because the number of people who think about him and care about him anymore is really so few and the interventions that have been made by any of our governments on his behalf are zero. And I can't imagine how any country can treat one of its citizens who is innocent, convicted and accused of nothing, had treat him so disgracefully, even when we pass laws like the Magnitsky Act to punish people for doing awful things in other countries. I mean, we are such hypocrites and the reason for it, of course, is obvious. The reason is that Julian and WikiLeaks got up the nose of the United States in 2010 and the United States made all sorts of aggressive statements about that and they will not back down from them and not one of our elected representatives is prepared to stick his neck out or her neck and go and protest about that. Now, I just want to read your listeners something that appeared in the Weekend Press by one of the columnists in the Weekend Australian magazine published by Murdoch, of course. He's going on about the terrible Russian invasion of Ukraine, et cetera, et cetera. But he says, the West has a secret weapon more powerful than any hypersonic ballistic missile potentially more damaging than any atrocity capturing smartphone. It is our capacity for and celebration of dissenting voices, get it? The Australian, let alone the American political process is a crucible of competing ideas, thinking, verbiage, some say sewage, covering a multitude of cities and regions whose people enjoy the freedom to say and do as they wish within the bounds of the law. Now, who is this man kidding? Who believes it? If we look at the behavior of successive Australian governments towards Julian Assange, it just makes every word of his argument a complete lie, but then we ought to use that truth. As well as that, what Australians should be worrying about a great deal more than becoming election or the war in Ukraine or anything like that is the damage that this whole episode has done to our capacity to trust our media, to protect our journalists from home and to enable people to get the facts from wherever they like and choose among them what it is they think are the most believable. At the moment, our entire society is divided by various narratives that serve certain interests and the person who controls the narrative controls the world. Julian knows this. What we're going to see with Julian, I fear and we have all hoped that something, somehow a new president, a new prime minister, something would intervene to put an end to this long, slow torture. What I fear is that the next step, if he's even capable of being moved to the United States, the next step will be that we will hear that he has committed suicide in his cell. Just like Jeffrey Hepstein. Oh yeah, I don't believe it. And I am seriously fearful. If that happens, I only hope that the people who have allowed it to happen will take responsibility in the end. Well, Britain should refuse to extradite Julian Assange to the US and bring this matter to an end. It is unconscionable that the UK would extradite a vulnerable person at risk of suicide to face an effective death sentence. The court's ruling is disappointing as is their refusal to hear any ch- Get out your notebook, Mark. If you are a consumer of independent news and the first place you should be going to is Consolidating News and please do try to support them when you can. It doesn't have its articles behind a paywall. It's free for everyone. It's one of the best news sites out there and it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism for over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of Consolidating News, it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.