 This is Kathy Bergen for CN Live, and I'm with Craig Murray, and we're going to talk about the assurances that were just announced for Mr Julian Assange. Craig, welcome to the show. Thank you very much, Kathy. It's nice to see you and talk to you because you know a great deal about the case and you have already been writing quite a bit about these assurances. As we expect, you alerted us to the ruling in the Supreme Court on June 29, 2020 from Justice Kavanaugh that finally, finally made it clear that foreign nationals outside US territory have no constitutional rights. That includes the First Amendment, but also other rights such as Article 7, for example, which played some part in the extradition hearing. Can you give us your reaction to what has finally come out? I imagine it's not much different than what you expected. No, what eventually came out was exactly what I expected. They've given the assurance on the death penalty, which was not hard for them to give because they've been not seriously looking to execute and they're looking to keep him locked into solitary confinement for the rest of his life. There's a dreadful warning to journalists as to what happens if you publish the truth about war crimes. But the so-called assurance on his ability to use a freedom of speech defence under the First Amendment is fascinating because they've tried to make it look like an assurance. It's disguised as an assurance, but in fact it's a refusal to give the assurance. What they've said is that he will be allowed to argue in court that he should be entitled to a First Amendment defence even though he's a foreign national. But of course they then go on to say it will be entirely up to the judge whether to accept that argument. And we know the judge won't because, as you say, there is a Supreme Court decision that a foreign national acting aboard a foreign national outside the United States does not have US constitutional rights. And that's extremely plain. I mean the particular decision was in the case of USAID versus open society, which was a case about charities and NGOs abroad receiving grants from USAID on condition that they took certain attitudes to sex work but they did not say anything contrary to USAID's official policy on sex work. Those NGOs claimed this was in breach of their constitutional right to freedom of speech. And the US courts, as non-US nationals acting outside the United States, they had no constitutional rights. It doesn't sound like it's not applicable, but in fact the judgment went on to be extremely specific, stating that if they were to have constitutional rights then constitutional rights would have to be given to other foreign nationals acting aboard in other situations with whom the US intelligence services and military had contact. And as a matter of long established law, I remember Kevin writing that that this isn't new. So it is kind of surprising that we're just discovering we're just getting that answer, because if you recall in the renewal appeal hearing. Neither side, and it's just been something that nobody believed Pompeo or Cromberg. Judge Baraita, going back to her extradition ruling, argued that once Julian was on US soil, she didn't have to worry about his article seven rights because he would be covered by the Fifth Amendment. And it was, I think, Judge Sharp, who said sharply rather sharply, I want a consensus opinion from both sides in writing so that we can not this thing out whether he's going to have the rights or not. And then what was discovered after all this time was the 2020 ruling, which, as you say, maybe it wasn't nobody was aware of it, because it didn't seem to be a related case. But it was very much a First Amendment case, right? Yeah, I would say I published it a few years ago. But this would happen, preferably into that case shortly after it happened. I think I actually did publish it on my blog as something relevant to the Assange case. I'll have to look that out and dig it out. So I was aware of it. I think in the context of Pompeo's comments, I dug it out. It's fairly plain he is not going to be entitled to First Amendment rights because of his nationality. And it's fairly plain that's what a judge will have to rule in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. And there are two points to make it, I think. The first point is that it is irrelevant whether or not his freedom of speech argument would succeed, ultimately. The High Court did not say there must be a guarantee that the freedom of speech argument must prevail over the national security argument. That's not what they said. In fact, they couldn't say that because their stipulation on being able to make the freedom of speech argument was dependent on article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which itself is extremely caveated by exceptions, including exceptions for national security. But what they did say was he must be able to plead it. Not that it must succeed, ultimately, but he must be able to plead it and that pleading it must not be debarred by his nationality. Yes. And what the US government is trying to do is obscure those two arguments or roll them into one. The argument that freedom of speech may be trumped by national security is one argument and that is something which is a legitimate decision for the courts in the United States in terms of the High Court's legal ruling. That is the second part, but he must not be stopped from arguing it on grounds of nationality. That is a different thing. And that is the one which would break the European Convention and that is the one which the High Court stipulates. And in their diplomatic assurance, the United States would try to roll those two things into one and in fact disguise one as the other. Yes. The point is he would be able to seek to argue the point so he would be able his lawyers would be able to say our client wishes to rely upon freedom of speech under the First Amendment. And the judge would rule no he can't because he's a foreign national and was acting abroad. And that would have met the assurance. He's he's sought to argue to seek to argue. That's no assurance at all. No, but the fact you can ask for a right to be denied it on grounds of nationality is not a guarantee you will not be denied on grounds of nationality. So plainly, this assurance falls it fails to meet the hurdle set by the High Court. And that's the only logical outcome of this case. But whether it will be the outcome of this case is an entirely different question. Well, I think it was. I've just been looking recently, I think it was point one hundred and seventy two. They argue that in the renewal appeal judgment, I believe it's just as sharp as saying that Mr. Assange says that the First Amendment is central to his defense. He must be able to plead it. He claims that if he can successfully plead the First Amendment, the case against him will fail. So therefore it is central to his defense. So I don't see how she can buy a half baked assurance like that. I mean, I think they weren't very knowledgeable about the case entering into the court, but they've gotten down to a few things. There's a few things that sadly that they completely missed. And I don't know what you think about it. You said there was a second point to make about the assurance was was that them both or because I was going to talk about the death penalty. I think it's a pretty solid assurance because they also assure that they will not add death penalty eligible charge on. But, you know, this argument to the point to 10 in the ruling where they seem to think that the threat from the CIA falls away if he is handed over to the justice system. So what they've missed, obviously, completely blithely unaware of is more in beds testimony in reexamination. Mark Summers got it out of her. Well, who decides whether a prisoner gets sands? Is it the Bureau of Prisons? Is it the prosecutors? No, it's the CIA. So the thing is, he's at their mercy. The connection is the key role that this CIA plays the controlling role and remember the caveat that was in the assurance. Unless he does something to warrant such measures that ADX promise against taking him there, that also would fall away and that the CIA would finally get to torture him in sands under conditions that, you know, in my dull, sickler statement, there was a warden called Robert Hood, who said that it was a fate worse than death, not fit for humanity. I mean, what I can't understand, maybe this is the question that I have to ask you, firstly, how is that not interpreted in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights as cruel and inhumane treatment? And also, do you think that when they go back into court that they're obviously going to be talking about these two assurances? But can they talk about the other ones that have already passed? Because, of course, that's where this caveat could come up. And they could enlighten those two judges about the possibility that Julian is not going into safe hands at all if he's handed over into the prison system. The answer to the last point is, no, that ship is safe. You know, those arguments are closed off. The arguments about his own conditions in the United States and his state of health were disposed of by the High Court in the United States appeal, where the High Court accepted assurances and those assurances are not open for the investigation, the defence attempted to argue at the time that they were not adequate and the High Court dismissed it. That's not up for the appeal. Yes, it's very plain, but the United States has heavy intention, I'm sure, of keeping him under sands and keeping him in conditions of living hell. And at any moment they can, you know, they can do to him what they did to Epstein. There's no guarantee at all. He won't be killed. But there's nothing. And I mean, yes, that's, that's obviously appalling and one of the terrible tragedies of this case. But there's nothing legally that can be done about it at this stage within the UK system. These are points which might be able to be raised if the case gets to the European Court of Human Rights. But within the High Court, that avenue is now closed off. Can they not challenge the rationale in point 210 of the judgment? Can't they tell the judges actually you've got that wrong? It won't be in safe hands. No, they can't. They can only deal with the two points they've been allowed to appeal on, which were very specific. They were the death penalty assurance which the Court will view as fine and that's closed off on. Yeah. And the question of whether he'd be barred on the grounds of nationality alone from pleading a medium of speech defense. All the other points were points in which for High Court said you are not allowed to appeal. And that decision is final within the UK system. So, so none of those other points can be can be raised. And we are now down to the single point of it. The hearing on the 20 May. The only thing really up for dispute now is the one single point which is left, which is this question of whether he is debarred from pleading the First Amendment on the grounds of nationality. But obviously it's an extremely strong point because, plainly, he is debarred from pleading the First Amendment on grounds of nationality and the only argument the United States have been able to come up with in this very cunningly drafted diplomatic note is that, well, he'll be able to argue that he's not debarred on grounds of nationality, knowing that that will not succeed. Whether the British Court will accept that. It's very hard to tell. It's not plain to me. And forgive me, this is something where I'm genuinely ignorant. I actually don't know the answer. I'm not sure it will be judges sharp and Johnson, again, on the 20th of May, or whether it might be two entirely new judges who I would say are liable to be even less sympathetic. I'm just necessarily going back to the same two judges again to determine whether the assurances are sufficient. I will need to try and check out and see, and possibly no one knows yet, need to try and check out whether that's going to be or to be or not. You're right, you would expect judge sharp to note this does not meet the point that she made. And this is an entirely political case, and at no stage have any of the judgments really reflected fear evaluation of the law at every single point in this long case. Every legal point has been twisted in order to a favor of prosecution, and I just don't see that changing. I'm afraid what we're seeing is a kind of charade, a pantomime of process of justice. So I'm just not hopeful. No matter how weak the assurance, how pathetic the so called assurance, which is no assurance. I'm not at all hopeful the United States won't succeed. We've been hopeful before it's just gone totally wrong. Totally. I mean, I remember John Pilger, when the Supreme Court refused the defences request or Julian's request to challenge the timing of the insurances and John Pilger said, what was the bloody point of the whole extradition hearing? You know, if they're just going to come in and say, oh, you'll be fine, you know, that ruling just invalidated it all. And they never actually overturned the findings of Copleman and Dealey and even the other two, Nigel Blackwood, I think his name was and Faisal. So all four of the medical experts were in agreement that they still said it would be all right. Do you think Craig, because you have written about this very important AA versus Home Secretary. Do you think that has changed something? Is that why we are discussing assurances now in court when there was no question of it before? I'm not sure. I think the important thing to remember on diplomatic assurances is it has a long history and was an extremely controversial question a long time before the Assange case. Yeah. You know, the UK has accepted diplomatic assurances from Jordan and Egypt that people won't be tortured, who they know down well are going to be tortured and possibly executed. Because we extradite people to all kinds of terrible regimes all around the world, the legal fiction has been accepted and is established UK law that diplomatic assurances must be accepted as being in good faith. But the good faith of the party with which the UK has diplomatic relations is taken as granted. And you basically, you know, you get something from the Saudis saying please give us this guy back and we promise we won't touch him and you have to accept it. And that is the established law that you basically are not really able to query these things. Now that doesn't really lie in the United States case because this isn't this isn't actually the same. It's not the same as the Saudi saying we won't torture someone. Because this is the United States, having been asked to say he needs to be guaranteed he won't be deprived of this right on grounds of nationality, replying. Well, he can ask not to be guaranteed. It's not that they're giving an assurance which when they're going to break is that they're not actually giving the assurance. Yeah. So it's a different category of thing. So I think the, I think the Assange case can be seen against this general extremely strong presumption that diplomatic assurances are always accepted, which is why that you know that High Court ruling in the Assange case that they accepted, even when they're completely out of time, didn't actually surprise me against that background. And, and, and I think it's important we do the promise people who, like ourselves who follow the Assange case very, very closely at 10 sometimes not to see it within the wider position of all the other extradition that are happening, often of unfortunate but less famous political dissidents. And I think that's the context of understanding the desire to accept the assurances. I don't see how with any pride or logic, the judiciary can accept this, this non assurance, but on the other hand, I do still very much fear that they will I just completely lost any trust in the system. Oh, so what do you think Mark Summers is going to throw at that on May 20. I think they will. Yeah, they'll go go by it logical step by logical step and say this is this is not an assurance that he will not be deprived on grounds of nationality. This is merely an assurance that he can argue that he should not be deprived. And I think it's very important now. One professor of international law I know quite well professor Dower corp has been has been in touch, saying, you know, there are other precedents is not just the USA case that there are plenty of other Supreme Court presidents, saying the same thing. You need desperately to get together all those other presidents and to get, you know, opinions from a baby of US constitutional or professors but say he will not be given this right he will be deprived of it on the grounds of nationality. Yeah. The difficulty is I'm not, which is what I would expect Mark Summers to throw at it. Yeah, you know, proof and other cases and others. I worry that at this stage for High Court would refuse to accept any new cases or any new evidence and say, you know, you had your chance to put that in the United States, of course, has been allowed to change the charges in the middle of the trial. It's been allowed to, it's been allowed to produce assurances months and months after they should have been years after they should have been produced. But every time the defense has tried to produce any new evidence it's been ruled ineligible. And my guess is that almost whatever Mark Summers tries to do, it will be ruled ineligible. That's my guess for what we're actually going to see. But I expect he's going to try to come up and with a lot of US case law and perhaps new opinions from distinguished American scholars of constitutional law that say he's not going to be given this right. That's what I expect they will now try to throw at the court. But as I say, I've just lost all faith in the administration of justice. So my expectation is the court will refuse to hear it. I'm wondering if Dobbin is going to be on her own again. We might see the return of Lewis. You think he's just given it up? You said normally that they, when it's a high profile case, they will actually arrange so that the lead lawyer can be there. But there was no sign of him last time and Dobbin didn't seem to lack confidence on her own, I thought. She did seem to lack confidence on her own. And I think that fact contributed, frankly, to the comparatively successful outcome for Julian's team. In particular, you know, she was plainly unprepared on this point, on this point of nice and empty. And she bummed and arred a lot when she was asked about it by the judges. And perhaps Lewis might have done a better job. No, it is strange that the United States has discarded its lead lawyer. And there's just no reason. It wouldn't be for timetabling because courts do go out of their way to fix their diaries with the lead banisters on both sides. So there's more to it than that. But we can speculate as to why, but we don't know. Okay, we have also we'll just have to cross our fingers. People here in Australia, my goodness, we've got both sides of government. Yes, we want to say something else. Yes. Yeah, just one final point, which is just how horrible is all this for Stella and the kids and for John and Gabriel. And obviously for Julian, and it's all part of the long process of mental torture for Julian, but the effect on the family is just happy. I know, I know. And I think it does really affect the people, the long haulers, you know, who've been through all of these different periods of hope. Well, this is it, you know. And they keep thinking that he's going to be released. And then, oh, it all falls on its face again. And the years just keep passing. But I'm reminded as well of the case of Mendoza. They were supposed to return because Spain didn't like separating prisoners from their families. They wouldn't do that. And how long, how many years it took and all the trouble. And what they did to Abu Hamza, you know, Lindsay Lewis told us about that. So you can imagine the beer in Stella's heart of what could possibly happen to Julian and how, you know, Julian is of the character. It was judged that way that he's just, he's going to refuse it and take what isn't the easy way out but just end it, you know. But we all, you know, we keep fighting, you know, we, we keep on fighting. And it remains the case that Biden is crazy to pursue this election. You know, when he's already losing so much support over his support for the genocide in Gaza. And I don't any longer believe in the independence of the judiciary. I think that's a myth. And I think the judicial process is a sham. And ultimately, whatever the United States government wants to happen will happen. I have not given up hope, but the United States government will come to its senses and realize that purely for reasons of self interest, which is the only thing that motivates these politicians for reasons of self interest, alienating the media world and alienating the younger and left wing and ethnic components of Biden support by bringing Julian Assange to Washington and change would be a very, very bad move. So I'm on the grounds that political wisdom may may prevail. I haven't given up hope. We keep fighting. Well, I think, you know, his name is already mud with what's going on in Gaza, and he seems to have lost control of it as well. He's not looking strong, but the whole business of supplying the weapons and, and holding out for so long before abstaining. I mean, his name is mud. And if he just dropped the charges on Assange, it might wash some of that mud off. But you're right, that would certainly be a good idea to get the press on site again to get them a bit more relieved, you know, that there's not going to be the New York Times problem. Yeah, isn't that that's what you're saying, isn't it really? It is indeed. And I think, I think they are now there. I think the editorial boards are all now where they should be on that question. And there's not much life in it at the moment, because from their point of view, it's all in London, nothing's happening, but were he to arrive in Washington, that would change. And they would actually be, I think, an explosion of negative press comment towards Biden. And so I do think, you know, I do hope that we will be able on political grounds to get this thing brushed eventually. But we should talk about Gaza too. Yeah, well, on that note, I just like to pass on to, well, the situation that I just brought up and the latest developments. I have a couple of questions here from Joe, who couldn't make it to this interview. David Cameron, the foreign secretary is in Israel, trying to persuade the Israelis not to escalate following Iran's attack on Israel. Cameron says Israel has decided to react. How do you see this playing out, Craig? Well, I never had any doubt that Israel would decide to react because Israel, of course, provoked the whole thing in the first place with its destruction of the Iranian consulate building in Syria. And Iran had every right in international law to respond to that because that amounts to an attack on Iranian territory. And there's just one point I want to make very briefly, which is that almost every single British and American embassy and other diplomatic mission hosts a CIA station or hosts an MI6 station. And we nearly all have military personnel in them. And they also do get involved in obviously in intelligence operations and in military operations and in covert operations of all kinds, including servicing special forces passing through and that kind of thing. So to pretend that in some way the Iranian mission was different because it does that kind of thing is a nonsense. British and American embassies do that kind of thing too. That's what happens in diplomatic missions. So if you're going to declare that because military or spying activity was being carried out of the out of the mission, it's okay to destroy it. Then you would be saying it's fine to destroy British and American embassies as well. And plainly that isn't what they, you know, the position they're taking. But the idea that in some way this the activity taking place rendered it not a diplomatic mission. It's simple nonsense. It's a gross hypocrisy, because we do it too. Yes, absolutely. Israel wanted to happen. Israel wanted this conflict because it detracts from Gaza and it gets all those Western politicians back online saying see we told you we need to supply arms to Israel. So of course Israel is not going to drop it. They're going to escalate the conflict with Iran to try to drag the United States of America further and further into conflict in the Middle East in order to protect the political position of Benjamin that in you. And that's quite simply what's going to happen. So do you think Biden is going to show some spine and make it plain to Netanyahu that he's on his own if he hits around causing Tehran to hit Israel back harder than the first time? No, I mean, clearly not. He's not going to show any spine and, you know, just as probably half or more of the missiles and drones aimed at Israel by Iran were shot down by by the United States of America, not by Israel. I think undoubtedly you would find United States military support for any attack on Iran. That surprises me because I think you had Kirby saying, well, you know, they've got superb defence Israel. But it does surprise me. I wasn't aware that America shut down a lot of them. So they were helping at that time. But they were actively shooting down. And they weren't just providing a source of logistic support functions, but they were actively involved in shooting down the missiles and shot down a basic and important portion of them. And I think you'll find America will get actively involved in any Israeli attack on Iran in the same way. And Biden is actually showing spine. Biden is pretending to be concerned the steel spine of Biden is this hard line to Israeli Hawk, who's received over 11 million dollars from the Zionist lobby over the years. And Biden is actually in a sense showing enormous amount of spine in that despite fantastic political damage to himself. And despite it completely being against the interests of the United States of America and the ordinary tax paying citizen. Biden is standing with Israel, actively participating in genocide, seeking active conflict with Iran that is Biden's steel spine. It's a, it's a fascist Zionist spine and the, the pretending concern and pretending he's trying to hold back Netanyahu and pretending he's worried about the genocide. That's all just camouflage the steel fist inside the iron glove, which is the actual Joe Biden is the guy who strongly approves of the killing of all these Palestinians and who wants conflict with Iran. That that's the truth of the matter. So what's the significance of the retaliation? First of all, it's my understanding that it was legal under article 51. But what's the significance in terms of the way that Iran chose to retaliate? Were they the adults in the room? It's difficult to know how much damage they intended to inflict upon Israel. I believe that Iran knew that an attack on that scale would not successfully penetrate Israeli defences and that they were merely testing out and mapping Israeli defences. That would be true. That would mean that the Iranians were pretty certain that the Americans and the Jordanians would, and even a fence apparently would join in the active defense against the attack. I don't think the Iranians could be certain about. I think they probably intended to inflict a bit more damage on Israeli military targets than they did inflict would be my estimation. But I can't claim to know, but nobody was saying the other thing can claim to know either. You'd have to actually have a line into the Iranian leadership to know which very few people have. It clearly was not intended to be a mass casualty event ended at the end of civilians. It was not that no one got killed. No one got killed. And if there was an intention to claim you on it wasn't civilians they were trying to kill, which is the big difference between Iran's actions and Israel's actions. Obviously a direct attack on on Israel is perhaps a firm of retaliation, still legal, but because the diplomatic premises attacked by Israel were convenient territory. It's what a diplomatic premises. So it, as you say, under article 51 of UN Charter Iran Act legally, it was probably stronger than people expected, but not designed to, you know, to be a kind of mass. casualty event that's going to lead to all that war. And in a sensible world, you would leave it there but of course Netanyahu needs conflict, you know his entire plan depends on on conflict and I think we will see further conflict in escalation from Israel. Well, I learned from listening to Scott Ridder that Iran has said that as soon as an attack begins from Israel off Iran goes as well. Now, after their intelligence gathering operation by mapping out the location of anti missile, you know, where that's deployed from, etc. And the other thing I've learned from him is that they didn't use their biggest missiles, but now that they have a good idea, better idea of how to penetrate the iron dome. Can we expect that if Israel does attack Iran now, will it be really terrifying what happens to Israel? What's going to happen there? Do you expect casualties then? The next stage is actually terrifying because the Iranians do not possess very good defensive capability against the Israelis technologically superior air force capability. The Israelis have difficulty getting to Iran. It's a long way away and although Jordan's opened its airspace, I don't think Iraq would and Syria wouldn't. But the Israelis are able to bomb deep into Syria without any significant opposition, real opposition. And I think they would be able to bomb Iran without Iran having a sufficiently significant air defense capability and the Soviet systems aren't sufficiently significant. So Israel could inflict major damage on Iran. Iran does have larger, powerful, very fast ballistic weapons which could inflict significant damage on Israel, which Israel also can't defend. But you're now in a system of mutually assured destruction in a sense. I'm not quite to extent of using nuclear weapons and destroying a civilization. But where you have two sides possessing an ability for bombardment, which the other side does not have the ability to counter, and that's where we would be in that scenario. You then face massive destruction because neither side has the ability to defend against the type of heightened attack that either side could carry out. So if the Israelis, you know, bomb and provide large destruction of Iran, the Iranians had the ability to retaliate with large destruction of Israel. And then we are getting into major, major conflict that is going to draw in the United States and is going to draw in other powers. And, you know, we're looking at World War II. So we all have to hope they could do and would almost certainly feel compelled to have the United States did. But on the other hand, you know, Russia is stretched by Ukraine. Russia has been receiving supplies from Iran. What's forces in Ukraine. And so the, you know, logistic ability of Russia to come in or what Russia can actually do. Russia again can probably only actually come in using weapons of enormous power and destruction. It doesn't really have the ability to come in with feet on the ground, if you like. In fact, everyone's trying to abolish feet on the ground. So, you know, we could get ourselves into a situation where various powers are pounding and bombarding and bombing and missile striking the Middle East into into destruction. Yeah. And we all have to pay that scenarios avoided because it's extremely dangerous, but it's where the kind of crazed response, which I half expect from Israel in due course. If the Israelis, you know, confine themselves to some bombing attacks on his Bala, I posted in Syria or something, then that's not too different to what happens every day of the week. So, so that's not going to bring that kind of massive retaliation, or if they yet again assassinate some more prominent Iranians living abroad. The kind of thing Israel does all the time, that's not going to bring massive retaliation, but they actually strike a strike at Iran. And I think we're moving towards a very scary place indeed. And when will they bring out the nukes? Yeah, I mean, I must say I am much more sympathetic to have supported nuclear disarmament my entire life, including, you know, I'm being a member of the campaign of nuclear disarmament my entire adult life, since I was 15 that included, including I support nuclear disarmament by the by the UK and by the United States and unilateral nuclear disarmament, not merely multilateral or negotiated disarmament. But I must say, I am understanding now of Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons in a way I never have been previously. You know, I can understand why, if you were the Iranians you would feel you need nuclear weapons to avoid obliteration. And so I don't think the Israelis are crazy enough to deploy it but but who knows. I mean, part of the problem with this is you are, you're dealing with with people who apparently genuinely believe that they have the imprint of God they are following God's instructions or given right to do things. And when you have people acting with that degree of irrationality, it's impossible to rule anything out. Well, I mean, we're just shocked on a daily basis by what they've been doing in Gaza. We never thought that possible. The latest one is the clip that I saw there's a baby sound of a baby crying somewhere and when people go to look for the baby it's just a recording but when they come out to look for the baby then they should. I mean, it's almost like a video game now. These people seem to be enjoying this, you know, and it's, it's madness. It's astonishing. The thing that got me the other day was the new yet another mass grave discovered at El Shifa Hospital, which consisted entirely of patients from the hospital had been murdered in their beds and some of them still had the saline drips attached to the corpses. And these levels of depravity are impossible for normal people to understand, you know, it's impossible for us to understand the, you know, they and they weren't. It's not that they were a mass fighters receiving treatment, even that would be would be grossly illegal. But now the old women lying in bed with drips attached shot dead lying in bed in the hospital. What, what kind of person can do that. The behavior of the Israelis the destruction of all hospitals that the targeting of families with children deliberately as you say these these strange boys like getting people shooting people as they try to get food or shooting people as they try to rescue a baby, the posing with the knickers of murdered women, all, you know, all, all this kind of utterly depraved behavior. I think as fortunately in the sense changed the worldview of Israel forever. You know, I, I think the peoples of the world now fully understand the meaning of Israel the meaning of Zionism. We have not yet found a mechanism to control our political class which is bought and paid for the situation is desperate. But hey, maybe that's going to change with the party that you have just joined I Joe, my colleague filmed you up in Blackburn and I cut it and actually I was very, very moved when you spoke about the second day at the ICJ International Court of Justice. South Africa versus Israel and all the lies that they told to justify killing children. I mean it was just incredible, but you know one of the hopes that was coming out of is coming out of that whole, the whole movement now this explosion of the Workers Party and all these people defecting actually defecting from the Labour Party. The notion that the Workers Party of Britain is what the Labour Party started out as I think it's giving hope to ordinary people who've had it tough up there. I should say the, you know, the realignment of politics is happening because people are realizing that, you know, you have. Gaza has opened their eyes to a much wider problem. They realize that you have to two political parties a main party in an opposition party in England and Wales, well England in particular, which both support the genocide in Gaza, and both do everything to protect the interest of Israel and support continued to be unsurprised to Israel even during a genocide. And people just aren't willing to go along with that. And it's made them see further that you have two parties that support austerity that support cutting public expenditure on schools and hospitals, while increasing it on defense spending that support not having viable levels of welfare payments and old age pensions provided for the British people. And the fact that there is no real choice, there is no democratic choice open to people has led to this desire for new parties and also to desire for independent socialist candidates. And that's what we've got going in in Blackburn and I'm hoping to give people who voted Labour for generations and it's got them nowhere. They've got nothing from it. They've got a chance to vote for a much more radical perspectives but they're not only wants us to have an ethical foreign policy and stop supporting genocide abroad, but also wants redistribution of wealth, you know, but doesn't want to have a thousand, thousand wealthiest people in the UK have an average wealth of 750 million pounds. And it was just in today in fact is just announcing the papers but more than one million pensioners are living in poverty, more than four million children are living in poverty in one of the wealthiest countries in the world and a party which is not not just for, you know, slightly increasing welfare benefits, but actually for policies which are going to stop the channeling of funds into a tiny number of hands which are going to look to actively redistribute capital which is looking to be nationalised for utilities, new railways and water. A party which bluntly offers a kind of prospectus Jeremy Corbyn was offering when he was leading the Labour Party, and even a little more radical than that. I think that's what we want to give people a choice to vote for and I think we'll beg through in some places at this election, hopefully in Blackburn, certainly in some other places we will beg through. And in a slightly longer perspective I think this is going to be fundamentally alignment in British politics. Well I think that the people of Blackburn, they're getting a second chance with you aren't they, because you spoke of having run there before against Jack Straw and you were the guy that, you know, told the truth about there being no weapons of mass destruction, he called you a liar, and they went his way and, you know, they get in a way. You said that there were a lot of people who apologised for voting that way instead of voting for you. They realised over time that you were telling the truth and the importance of truth, especially in the face of war and the weapons industry. Probably in the science said that ordinary people don't like war, they have to be fooled into war, or they just have to be kept in the dark. You know, but the kind of person that you are, you're so transparent and, you know, you've told the truth and I think they're going to feel a lot of them are going to feel with Craig's come back. We can do the right thing this time perhaps. Very touching. Welcome back. Including from, I'm sat on the stage next to Jack Straw's former election agent, who was supporting me and also received support from the guy who for 12 years was the Labour Lord Mayor of Blackburn and head of Labour Administration there. I'm standing because I was invited to stand by six local councillors who have left the Labour Party because of Gaza and invited me to come back and stand. Do you agree, George Galloway just said the other day, quite surprised me that he was one of the people who thought that a general election might very well be in June. Do you expect it to be that early or will it be, in your view, will it be, I think it was last announced as being sometime in November? What do you think? There's a wide degree of choice. It doesn't have to be until almost this time next year, I think. Can you worry, I think? My guess is, my guess is October, but I don't know, and I don't know what information George has that makes him think June. We will see, but we'll be ready whenever, you know, we are ready to fight and we'll be at the starting gate immediately. And I myself going to be moving to live in Blackburn as from next month and be there campaigning all time up till the election. So, yeah, it's going to be, it's actually, of course, it's a moral duty to stand against two political parties, both of which are billionaire owned parties, in effect, which take the interests of billionaires and are in full to the interests of Israel. It's a moral duty to stand against them, and that will weigh heavily upon us, but we're also going to have a lot of fun, you know, fighting for the good, fighting for the right is an enjoyable thing to do. And I certainly hope people will be there, will be there with us. How's your arm going? I'll let you go. So this is the last thing I'd like to know if it's getting better. Yeah. It's very painful. It's, it's actually, um, yeah, I can't really, I haven't got much movement, I can actually, you can't see what I'm doing, but I, that's as high as I can lift it. I've managed to now move my arm forward onto the keypad so I can now type. I can't, it's this arm, I can't, I can't lift it any higher than it's now lifted, and I can't move it to the side more than that. That's sort of a range of movement in the shoulder. The ligaments were all, the shoulder dislocated very badly. I mean, it came to there, basically. And all the ligaments were cut. So it's, and unfortunately once you reach my age, it takes longer to heal than it does when you're 30. But if I was 30, it would be a, you know, a six week healing job. And this is a, this is going to be a long slow process. It will heal. It may need an operation. And I'm, I saw myself on that video in Blackburn when I wasn't speaking and I look extremely miserable. I don't look myself at all. I have this very sort of tight face and I look angry and upset. It's because it is actually extremely painful all the time. It really is not much fun. But, but we'll get through it. We'll get through it. After Persevere, they'll make you do physio as well to bring back that mobility up. I had a bit of a fall. You know, we're both getting on Craig, but not that old. Not that old yet that we can't be dangerous. Okay, it's been a real pleasure to talk to you very enlightening. Lovely to speak to you, Kathy. Yeah. Thank you. Hi. Alexander McCouris was also supposed to join us on this show, but he couldn't make it. However, he sent through a statement, which is about the Assange Assurances. Alexander says, the court will accept the assurance on the death penalty. That's his first point. And I think that's, Craig and I have agreed that there's little doubt about that. Secondly, the First Amendment assurance does not say that Assange can rely on the First Amendment protection, merely that he can apply to the U.S. Court for First Amendment protection, but that it is for the U.S. Court to decide whether or not he can rely on it. Logically, that does not fulfill the terms of the assurance the High Court sought, and this assurance should therefore be rejected, in which case Assange ought to be granted full leave to appeal. I'm afraid I doubt this will happen. On the substantive issues in the appeal, the High Court has sided with Judge Boraita. That was the extradition hearing judge. It's such a long time ago, I feel I have to clarify. I suspect what the High Court will say is that it is not its place to ask the U.S. Court from its inherent right to determine the applicability of any U.S. law, including the First Amendment. Given that on the substantive issues the High Court has said that the case to extradite Assange has been made out, I doubt that they will grant leave to appeal, because it will fall to the U.S. Court to decide at the appropriate time a question of U.S. law. That does not make strict logical sense, but it is the approach I expect the High Court to take. He goes on. If the High Court indicates that this is the direction in which it intends to go, there is one last move which I think Assange's lawyers might want to consider. This is that they could say that since the U.S. assurance is qualified and since a ruling in the U.S.'s favor potentially detracts from Assange's rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the issue should be referred to the European Court of Human Rights to determine the issue, with execution of Assange's extradition to the U.S. being stayed until the European Court of Human Rights has made its decision. Referrals by the U.K. Court of Cases to the European Court of Human Rights to determine questions which have arisen under the Convention are by no means unprecedented. However, given the inherently political nature of this case, I doubt that this is what the High Court is going to do. So that statement was from Alexander Makouras. He largely agreed with many things Craig Murray said, but he added that other move where could we expect that the U.K. Court actually refers the case to the European Court of Human Rights? Well, Alexander is pessimistic about that, but I think he has learned to be pessimistic with this case because there have been so many disappointments, so many surprises and some outrageous decisions made. Many things where the case should have been cancelled, should have been thrown out of court spying on the defense, kidnapped or killed plot. We all know the story now and are just amazed that this thing has gone on for so long. So it's been a long talk with Craig and now a bit of Alexander, but that's it for now from Cathy Vogan for Consortium News. Thank you for joining us. If you are a consumer of independent news in the first place you should be going to is Consortium 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 Consortium News, it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.