 Welcome to this important politics in the pub event. A slave, Jury and Assange, it's now or never. Most of this audience will know that over the past several decades, this important public forum has addressed the massive cruelties and injustices towards this important Australian citizen, publisher, journalist and very brave and principled whistleblower. A man who is an Australian citizen, but in many respects, an international citizen who has been punished for the most part for revealing the murder and mayhem by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and has been threatened with the possibility, if you can imagine it, of 175 years in jail. That's my way of introduction. The second point I want to make concerns the judgments of the British Ambassador Craig Murray concerning the way in which so-called British justice has made the judgment that Julian Assange's health will not be affected unduly by being returned to a maximum security American prison. There are several issues in Craig Murray's judgment which this politics in the pub event will no doubt be considered. The first consideration is in what is known as the court of first instance a judgment was made that Julian Assange's health would be affected by being extradited to the United States. The second principle to be considered is that in the US, UK extradition treaty there's clearly a principle that you don't deport, you don't extradite people for political reasons, you can't do that. And the third principle which is enshrined in the humanitarian law is that principle underlined by the French word non-refoulement. You can't deport, you can't extradite people who are fleeing prosecution unlikely to be prosecuted if you return them in Julian Assange's case to face the prospect of more than a century if you can believe it in an American prison. Now all those issues have come to a head because at long last some principles and gutsy Australian federal politicians one from the independent Andrew Wilkie, a Liberal MP a Green Senator David Shrewbridge who will be addressing this meeting and a Labour MP have said that not only enough is enough but there needs to be a thorough, urgent and completely independent appraisal of the risk to Julian Assange's health. Not only a risk as a result of the years of incarceration in solitary confinement in Belmarsh prison in Britain but of the risk of death, not just deterioration in health if Julian is extradited to the United States. That brave principle at long last letter from MPs across the political divide will no doubt be considered by this Politics in the Pub meeting and hopefully will make a deep impression on the British Home Secretary to whom that letter has been delivered. I congratulate the organisers of Politics in the Pub for taking up this important cause for Julian Assange and frankly for social justice worldwide. Welcome to everyone in person and online at this session at the Harold Park Hotel. We're back here after several years and we thank the manager Jason for his strong support for Politics in the Pub. So this special event tonight is put on really by us and also consortium news and it's been organised now because a hearing date has been set in London for Julian Assange's final appeal against extradition within the British judicial system. It's set for February 20 and 21 and that's why we're calling tonight's event Saving Julian Assange. It's now or never and several of the people here presenting to us tonight will be in London for that but it's another reason why we're here now. So I've sent out to plenty of people a copy of the letter by a cross-party group of Australian MPs to James Cleverley the British Home Secretary requesting that he undertake an urgent, thorough and independent assessment of the risks to Mr Assange's health and welfare in the event he is extradited to the United States. Such an independent investigation should include a close review of the risks to his health, life and well-being through prolonged detention in one of more high-security US detention facilities. So tonight's panel will untack this legal strategy which makes the health of Julian Assange the centre of the argument. Julian is an Australian citizen, a member of my union, the media entertainment and arts alliance as a media worker and we at Politics in the Papa have been part of the campaign for his release from persecution for many years. Julian is a political prisoner being slowly put to death. We can all make a difference especially when we're well-informed and organised. So let me introduce the speakers we have this evening here in person and by pre-recorded video. So first we have heard from Stuart Reese, our first speaker in person will be Mary Costa-Kitties. She will update us on Assange's campaign. She's an eminent Australian researcher, journalist and a former, she was really the face of SBS to us for decades. She'll be followed by Senator David Shubridge from the Australian Greens. He's also a former barrister with a keen legal mind and he's the green spokesperson on defence issues. Our next speaker after that will come by video. It's Richard Medhurst. He's a courtroom journalist from London and he'll be looking closely at the quality of US assurances on the safety of a previous case of a Spanish defendant. Then we have a brief presentation by Dr Arthur Chesterville Evans, a former surgeon and a former member of the New South Wales Legislative Council. Arthur will explain the specific health challenge that Julian Assange could face if extradited to the USA. And our final speaker by video is Mr Joe Laurier. He's the editor of Consortium News and a former Wall Street journalist correspondent and also for other mastheads at the United Nations for 25 years. So we've asked the people on video to be short except for David, Richard Medhurst. But Mary and David Shubridge and Richard will be speaking for up to 15 minutes each and when these presentations are complete we will have a 10 minute break for drinks and then we will move to the question and answer session. We'll finish at nine o'clock or when the last question has been dealt with. So I'd like to just acknowledge the technical management of the online and offline inputs being done by Kathy Vogan and the media, the video cameras by Fabio Cavadini and Mandy King of Front Yard Films. So thank you very much. Please be respectful to everybody. Turn your phone phones down to zero, please. If not off. And I'd like to welcome Mary Costa-Kitties to make an address to you. Thanks everyone and thanks to those of you joining us online. I'd like to speak about three things tonight. One is the acceptance and reliability of the US Assurances. Another is the developments in Julian Assange's health and finally a few words about the upcoming hearing. In Julian's extradition case, Judge Vanessa Baraitza determined that he would not survive imprisonment in a US supermax facility that is very likely to commit suicide. The final or penultimate witness was an American lawyer whose client Abu Hamza was held in ADX, Colorado where Julian is likely to be sent. Abu Hamza has no hands. He was extradited from the UK following assurances by the US that the prison system would be able to deal with the special requirements of such a prisoner. His lawyer testified that despite the US assurances that he would not be placed in isolation he was indeed held under special administrative measures and remains in isolation in fact to this day nine years later. The US also failed to deliver on other undertakings to protect his human rights. He didn't have a toilet in his cell that was usable by someone with no hands contrary to the guarantee and so he was stripped of all dignity. Spain successfully pursued the return of their citizen who was extradited to the US following assurances that the US reneged on and the process of retrieving their citizen took many years. The assurances provided by the US in their appeal in the lower court's decision in Julian's case were not tested in court. The high court judges hearing the appeal automatically accepted them expressing the view that assurances by the US government can be relied on and differentiating between assurances offered by state and those offered by a diplomat. I can't understand how a diplomat could give a court a guarantee without clearing it with the boss. However, the judge made this distinction so the person whose signature appears on this document is critical. It made the difference for him. Significantly though, the assurances were also conditional. They could be revoked at any time so not worth the paper they were written on and didn't matter whose signature was at the bottom. Since then though, the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling in a case where the UK government had accepted assurances provided by foreign government Rwanda that they cannot automatically be accepted that there is a requirement and I quote for meaningful, independent, evidence-based judicial review focusing on the protection of human rights on the ground in that country. In Julian's case, the human rights of national security prisoners in the United States, their treatment and the conditions in which they're kept. The UN considers solitary confinement beyond two weeks to be torture. Special rapporteurs have been arguing this for decades and rapporteur Juan Mendes in condemning the treatment of Chelsea Manning said, prolonged solitary confinement raises special concerns because the risk of grave and irreparable harm to the detained person increases with the length of isolation and the uncertainty regarding its duration. I've defined prolonged solitary confinement as any period in excess of 15 days. This definition reflects the fact he said that most of the scientific literature shows that after 15 days certain changes in the brain functions occur and the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible. Abu Hamza has been in solitary for nine years. His lawyers stated walking was too painful because his toenails were so long and his pleas for them to be cut were ignored. I'd now like to speak a bit about Julian's health. The automatic acceptance and reliability of the assurances were not the only problem at the time. A serious problem that arose during that hearing was its failure to note or take into account in any way the change in Julian's medical condition. It's a critical failure because the decision delivered was based on assurances the US prison could mitigate against his known risk factors. Importantly, the risk that he would commit suicide but he had developed another serious physical risk factor. At the start of the US appeal there was a brief pre-hearing chat between Julian's lawyer and the judge. Julian's lawyer said words to the effect that Julian had elected not to attend due to an increase in medication. It was extraordinary and inconceivable that he would choose not to observe the hearing via video link and indeed I was later informed that he did want to appear but the prison didn't allow it. Both his absence and the explanation flagged the problem. He's never missed a hearing. He has always struggled to engage with the drama in the courtroom despite enormous challenges such as not being able to talk to his lawyer in court or even attract his lawyer's attention and despite medication and despite deteriorating health which has been so thoroughly documented by UN rapporteur Nils Melzer. And secondly, why was he so heavily medicated so as not to be able to sit in the video link room in Belmarsh? What had necessitated the increase in medication? This is directly pertinent to the decision the court had to make but I had no question from the judge about it and the hearing proceeded. Then remarkably, some time into the hearing duly and appears. We journalists observing could see him in the thumbnail on our screen. He would have been able to see the judge and people in the courtroom would have been able to also see him on a monitor. He looked mighty unwell, not only drugged. He had to use his arm to prop up his head but one side of his face was drooping and one eye was shut. During these hearings we were given very occasional glimpses of the defendant and very brief glimpses. So I asked the video host if he could please give us a longer look at the defendant because he seemed unwell and other journalists also asked him and the host obliged and we were shown Julian more often and for longer than in any other previous hearing. So after the bizarre news that Julian was not going to attend his own hearing the second thing that was inconceivable is that given his condition when he did appear there were no questions, there was no adjournment. No one was perturbed by his state. Julian persisted in his attempt to focus and was clearly having great difficulty. He eventually gave up, stood up and moved away from the monitor camera. The public learned some nine weeks later and days after the judgement came down clearing the way for his extradition that he in fact had had a transient ischemic attack, a minor stroke. Often a precursor to a major catastrophic one and when prompt access to an MRI machine would be vital if his life were to be saved should he have a second stroke. I don't know whether it's known when exactly Julian had the stroke. Was it before the hearing? Was it during the hearing? Why was he so heavily medicated? One thing is clear though. He's had a stroke so his condition has changed. The assurances accepted no account of this though the court's decision was handed down long after he had the stroke and around the same time that it was finally diagnosed and made public. One final remark about that hearing one of the two justices, Judge Ian Duncan Burnett was the Chief Justice of the High Court at the time. The decision he had made in the case of Laurie Love was considered a precedent where the extradition of a UK citizen to the US was prevented on the basis of his medical condition. This engendered of course a little hope that this judge may not reverse the district court's decision in Julian's case. But as Law Professor Nils Melzer remarked you don't need the Chief Justice on a case where he's already said a precedent that can be followed but you do need him if his precedent is to be overturned. Throughout the hearing the love decision loomed large in our minds and Laurie was present in court but we realised this path was a dead end when it was finally raised by Julian's lawyers. The Chief Justice was quite dismissive but that was an entirely different case. He had eczema. The realisation struck us that the difference between being extradited or not was eczema and there'd be no joy for Julian in this court despite the marked deterioration in his physical and psychological health. Julian sought leave to appeal the decision of the High Court to accept the US Assurances in the Supreme Court but that court's determination there were no arguable points of law. Now I'd like to say a few words about the upcoming hearing. In three weeks a panel of two High Court judges will decide whether Julian can appeal the decision to extradite him. The purpose of this hearing is to rule on whether Julian can appeal both the Secretary of State's decision to extradite him and judge Barathe's decision on the basis of all the grounds he argued which she didn't accept. The reliability and adequacy of the Assurances that have not been tested in court and now the medical condition for which they were furnished has changed and in the meantime there's been a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in another case regarding the necessity of a judicial review of foreign Assurances. The letter to the Home Secretary from across party group of our parliamentarians is an important and timely one and I know David Shubridge is going to be talking about that too shortly. Julian has made an application to attend this hearing personally in person rather so that he is able to communicate with his lawyers. We don't know whether the judges will make an immediate decision at the conclusion of the two-day hearing or reserve their judgement. If Julian wins this case then a date will be set for a full hearing. If he's denied the right to appeal then that exhausts further appeal avenues at the domestic level. He can then apply to the European Court of Human Rights which has the power to order a stay on his extradition. This is referred to as a rule 39 which is given only in exceptional circumstances. It may by then however be a race to lodge this appeal before he's bundled off on a plane to the United States. And in closing I just want to say that if Julian is extradited and the US is successful in prosecuting him though he will not receive a fair trial there and unlikely to receive constitutional protection that's offered to US citizens it will have redefined investigative journalism as espionage and demonstrated that US law, US domestic laws but not protections apply internationally to non-US citizens and it will have cost to be in his freedom and quite likely his life. Thank you. Thank you very much Mary for that very sobering assessment of the situation where Julian is facing. I'd now like to ask Senator David Shubridge to come to the microphone. Thanks Peter and thanks to Politics and the Pub and the organiser for putting it on and the venue for making it available for us tonight. We know we're all gathered on Gadigaland and we will pay our collective respects to the First Nations, Elders, Paths, President and Emerging and we do it in this country a few days after our so-called national day. Which instead of being a day where we cheer and invasion should at best be a day where we reflect upon the impacts of that invasion, the ongoing impacts on First Nations peoples and commit to do better, much better than we did last year much better than we've done over the last two centuries and walk together with First Nations peoples on a genuine pathway to self-determination and justice for this land, the land of the Harropak Hotel is Gadigaland and let's remember that. Thanks as well to Mary for setting the scene a kind of chilling scene about an Australian citizen who's held effectively an ongoing solitary confinement in a UK high security prison faces a lifetime of further detention and I would argue effective torture in a US high security prison under a law that the US Congress passed which purports to say no matter where on the planet you are no matter whether you have a connection to the United States a legal obligation to the United States no matter where, no matter when if you spill their secrets they're going to hunt you down they're going to find you they're going to persecute you they're going to drag you back to their country they're going to try you in secret and they're going to keep you in jail forever and what has our government said about that? Our government said oh well we can't interfere with the rule of law if that's the rule of law on this planet the rent a hell of a lot of trouble aren't we? and if our government cedes to that claim by the United States without a whimper without any objection and Jess said that's fine pluck Australian citizens wherever you find them try them in your effective military courts and jail them forever for spilling your secrets we're fine with that could you imagine a sort of more supine relationship between Australia and the United States well I can't it kind of demonstrates the problem of the relationship it demonstrates why we're in a $368 billion hole with AUKUS it demonstrates why we're joining them as best as they can to bomb people in Yemen it demonstrates why we say nothing about the genocide and the violence in Gaza it demonstrates why we have a big job to do here in this country to change our government and to genuinely have an independent and principled Australian foreign policy but if we could go back to Julian what is Julian's actual crime what is the crime that the United States has identified in their judicial overreach in this case well the crime they've identified is that Julian did spill the secrets he told the truth and the problem we're talking about Julian Assange is where, how far back in time do you go to sort of ground the merits of the case well I suppose you go back to the Iraq war and you think about the vicious brutal crimes of the US occupying military they're shooting dead Reuters journalists capturing it on film killing the rescuers doing it with a kind of brutal indifference and capturing it on film and Julian's crime wasn't the killing or the brutal indifference or the rules of engagement that let that happen or the system that permitted that invasion Julian's crime was telling us about it and the same about the cables that went back and forth that showed the true underbelly of the US international and foreign relations about how it was about self-interest and power not about truth and justice in the American way and his crime was telling us about it and embarrassing and spilling the secrets of the United States and that's what he's charged with and we should always remember that and if you're ever wondering about why we're also head up about this well in a world that's spinning into yet more Western-driven conflicts, not all but many of the Western-driven conflicts in a world that seems keen to follow the United States in a war in the Middle East or a war in the South China Sea surely more than ever we should be prizing not punishing those who tell the truth about it and allow us to see a different way forward that doesn't involve us as the deputy sheriff of the United States in their endless, endless wars of course we should but why don't we just roll through now to September of this year and in September of this year I had the benefit of going on a cross-party delegation to the US to speak directly with members of Congress over there, Senators and House of Reps and like with a, you know, let's be clear a kind of rainbow coalition of Australian politicians all the way from Barnaby Joyce on one side to Monique Ryan and myself and my good friend Peter Wish-Wilson, a Green Senator from Tasmania, as well as Labor MP Tony Zappio and although we came from very different political backgrounds and Barnaby Joyce himself says he doesn't much like Julian Assange but partly for the reasons that I articulated about US overreach, he said well surely our government should be sticking up for that and saying that shouldn't happen Barnaby and I are like a 12 hour clock you know we agree once a day and we agree on that and interestingly when we went to Washington the reason we went there was because we thought it had died down and we know that the extradition was coming to a head of steam there was a chance that the proceedings in the UK could have come on at the end of last year and we wanted to talk across Congress it didn't matter whether they were Democrat, Independent or Republican it didn't matter if they were far right, far left, middle we wanted to talk with members of Congress and interestingly with the rainbow coalition that we took over there we kind of had somebody who could talk to anybody in Congress and that kind of helped and I've got to tell you from the far right of the Republicans to the very progressive left of the Democrats there was real buying in this and a real acknowledgement about the unfairness and a real acknowledgement from the US of two things I thought from the progressive left many of the issues that I've spoken about about telling the truth about being honest about US more making and being honest about the way the world operates and from the right a very real engagement with First Amendment rights to speak the truth the right to hold governments to account without being put in jail about it and there's a very real argument at the moment about whether or not those First Amendment rights apply to a foreigner and the US administration is saying old First Amendment rights only apply to US citizens and they can do whatever the hell they like with foreigners and in a world of global media I can tell you that causes a lot of angst to many politicians left and right in the US so having undertaken that trip but I want to credit the Assange campaign for funding that and making it possible we thought well have we started a bit of a fire there have we started some spot fires about it and I'm pleased to say that we have because it was in November that we saw two of the representatives that we caught up with one a moderate Republican Jim McGovern some people might call him a progressive Republican it depends where you call him from Australian political spectrum or the US but Jim McGovern and Thomas Massey a Republican they they pulled together a public letter an open letter to the Biden administration which ended up being signed by 16 members of Congress and again from across the political spectrum saying to the Biden administration First Amendment rights in First Amendment rights the right to tell the truth to tell truth to power stop the prosecution this is an independent journalist trying to be a journalist and that should not be a crime under the United States law pull the prosecution and they followed that up with a resolution in December that's been put to the floor of Congress now interestingly while this was all happening US politics was in a complete whirlwind they were throwing out speakers they weren't passing budgets they were engaging in some pretty brutal domestic politics and pretty much nothing was uniting United States politics so I think we should reflect upon the fact that there's now this issue of Julian Assange actually uniting US politics from progressive to Republicans and the Biden administration is looking increasingly vulnerable in their ongoing prosecutions and that's been followed up by yet more representations in January again cross-party representations in Congress putting Biden on the line so plan A is to get the United States to pull the prosecution to acknowledge that there will be ongoing domestic grief to the Biden administration if they continue and if there is a change of administration that that will pull in and stop the prosecution that's plan A to end the prosecution from the US perspective but plan B is to kill the prosecution off in the UK and that's why in January of this year myself as one of the co-conveners of the bring Julian Assange home parliamentary group together with Andrew Wilkie an independent MP and a courageous whistle-blower himself Bridget Archer from the Liberal Party I won't praise Bridget because that never helps her in her struggles inside the Liberal Party but Bridget is a person of genuine decency Josh Wilson Labor Party MP and myself as the Greens Defence and Justice spokesperson and all co-chairs of the parliamentary group wrote to the UK Home Secretary you can find it online I think copies have been shared around it's always a challenge when you're working with Ford to get a brief letter we got a brief letter together to James Cleverly the UK Secretary of State and in that we said something pretty straightforward that the law in the UK has moved on since the appeal court rejected Julian's appeal on Assange because at the core of Julian's case has been amongst other things that if he is extradited to the US and faces ongoing detention in some pretty brutal federal prisons ongoing isolation from his family his health is at very serious risk this endless prosecution that he faces and in the appeal decision the appeal court said they didn't have to worry about identifying or proving those facts they could rely upon the bear assurances given by the United States and accepted by the UK that he'd be fine so a bear assurance is fine and they didn't test it and they said that they didn't have to go beyond those assurances and to the extent the trial judge went beyond the assurances and actually was anxious about his health and said that he faced very very serious health consequences and we know that could possibly include the loss of his life the Chief Eleanor should have just relied upon the assurances you don't have to go beyond that well since then the UK Supreme Court which is their highest court in the case of AAA via the Secretary of State for the Home Department admittedly in a slightly different context in a refugee context but when considering the UK's proposal to follow some pretty cooked Australian and jail anybody who arrives seeking refugee status on a boat and in this case send them off to Rwanda for resettlement in Rwanda in that case the Supreme Court said you can't just rely upon the assurances of the Rwandan government and you can't just rely upon the assurances of the UK government having accepted the assurances of the Rwandan government and the courts have to test whether or not if someone's got to be sent back to another country in these circumstances they have to test the truth they have to make their own determination and I've got to tell you thank goodness the Supreme Court made that finding because we've found out very recently that at the same time as the UK government was in the Supreme Court saying no no no the assurances don't have to test it it's fine look here's a release from us and there's a release from the Rwandan government to be fine in Rwanda at the same time as that was happening the UK government was granting refugee status to at least four Rwandans because they had significant fear of ongoing persecution in Rwanda they were doing the two things at the same time the reason being you shouldn't just trust no court should accept the question from a government when the court's obligation is to actually look to an individual's rights and in the case of Julian Assange his right to life I think is pretty much up there that should be considered by the UK courts so we said and Peter read it out at the beginning we said to James Cleverlet do your job in a polite way and a respectful way it's not our job to direct the UK government and we said to this end we are requesting that you undertake an urgent thorough and independent assessment of the risk to Mr Assange's health and welfare in the event he's extradited to the United States consistent with the decision in AAA it appears to us that such independent investigation should include a close review of the risks to Mr Assange's health, life and well-being through prolonged detention in one or more high-security US detention facilities well of course they should now in three weeks time we will find out if that is been done, in three weeks time we'll find out if the UK government accepts that that should be part of the consideration in Julian Assange's week but I have to say in three weeks time we're likely to still see an Australian Government that thinks this is all okay that it's the rule of law and they can just let an Australian citizen be brutalised like that well I disagree let's keep the struggle alive let's bring Julian in, thanks very much thank you very much David let's keep this fight up we were to have a video presentation from Jennifer Robinson that was advertised but for health reasons she wasn't able to do that so we're running now a video by Richard Medhurst who's dealing with this situation of US assurances and their failure to deliver on them I think it will be very instructive also so over to Kathy, thank you very much I was covering Julian Assange's High Court Appeal and the lead prosecutor he told the judges the United States have never broken a diplomatic assurance ever these classified documents that I obtained show otherwise the United States they've given Assange two assurances right they said that they've served his sentence in Australia and they've said that he won't be put in oppressive prison conditions David Mendoza was also given diplomatic assurances when they were trying to extradite him from Spain to the US in 2009 they also gave Spain diplomatic assurances because the Spanish court imposed three conditions on his extradition they said if you want to take David Mendoza number one you have to send him back to serve his sentence in Spain you cannot give him a life sentence because that's illegal in Spain you cannot try him for your currency structuring because that's not a crime in Spain the United States Embassy sent this assurance and I want to read it to you, pay attention to the language look how vague it is they said that it does not object to Mendoza making an application to serve his sentence in Spain that's not the same thing as we will send him back to Spain this is completely different for the life sentence they said that will not seek a sentence and that it will do everything within its power that Mendoza receives a determinate sentence of incarceration what is a determinate sentence of incarceration is that 5 days, 5 months 5 centuries, that could mean anything they could give him 500 years and say see that's not a life sentence it doesn't say life and the other thing with the currency structuring they kept it in, right so they listed all the charges here in this diplomatic note and they kept the currency structuring in even though the Spanish court explicitly ruled it out so Mendoza and his lawyer I mean they were immediately alarmed by this they took it to court and they said you got to give us something better than this what the Spanish court came up with they made this contract this is the acta de entrega or deed of surrender when Mendoza was extradited when he was on the tarmac about to get in the plane with the US Marshals this deed of surrender was signed by Spain by David Mendoza and by Kimberly Weiss works at the US Embassy in Madrid so she signed this on behalf of the US government and what does this say it says that David Mendoza is surrendered to the US authorities in accordance with what was stipulated by the Spanish National Court that means when you sign this you agree to send Mendoza back to Spain to serve his sentence you agree you cannot give him a life sentence you agree you can't try him for currency structuring it's as clear as day so even if these assurances are vaguely worded this deed of surrender certainly isn't this is a very clear cut and dry contract and just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding the last sentence says signing those present as proof of agreement the US signed it, Spain signed it and David Mendoza signed it so he gets to the US they extradited him in April 2009 and then they give him 14 years and at sentencing Mendoza says you need to send me back to Spain because that's the agreement well, you can make any claims because you're not a signatory of the extradition treaty between Spain and the US which is a ridiculous claim because obviously countries, governments sign treaties together not natural persons so obviously Mendoza is not a signatory but that's what they told them they said go to jail and when you're in jail you can make an application for a treaty transfer so he goes to jail he makes the application eight months later they deny him there's a document from the US Department of Justice denying his application in 2010 Mendoza applied three times three times he applied to go back to Spain and three times they denied his application they violated the diplomatic assurances they violated the acta de entrega the contract that they signed with Mendoza and with Spain so they kept Mendoza for six years and nine months and after the first denial Mendoza he realized the US is not going to give him any justice he needs to go sue Spain for not enforcing the conditions for not pressuring the US to send him back so he goes and he sues Spain in the Supreme Court for violating the conditions of his extradition for violating his human rights two cases and he wins them both at the Supreme Court and the Spanish Supreme Court said to the Spanish government if you don't get Mendoza back we will suspend the extradition treaty and one judge was very sympathetic to Mendoza anonymously sent him the acta de entrega the deed of surrender so now Mendoza had a document proving that he signed a contract with Spain and the US because let me tell you something he knew this paper was there and they wouldn't give it to him he made a freedom of information act request in the US and you know what they told him they said you can't have it because it's classified and you're not privy to diplomatic communications even though he read it and signed it and instead they gave him a copy of the acta de entrega without his signature so he can't go to court and contest the United States for breach of contract for non-compliance I mean this is really some banana republic stuff can you imagine you sign a contract with someone and then they give you a copy without your signature so you can't make any claims because the other party didn't fulfill their end of the bargain I mean this is ridiculous so that's what they did but now he had the copy from a Spanish judge and so now he goes to civil court of justice and Obama's attorney general Eric Holder so now just to recap Mendoza he's won two supreme court cases in Spain judges have stopped processing extraditions of Spanish nationals from Spain to the US the Spanish Supreme Court is practically threatening to suspend the extradition treaty between Spain and the US he's suing the United States with this in civil court now the United States the prosecutor calls up Mendoza's lawyer and says if you drop the civil suit in the US you can go back to Spain so for six years and nine months they violated the diplomatic assurances they violated the contract and it's only it's only because he sued Spain at the Supreme Court and Spain was threatening to suspend the extradition treaty only then did they send him back only when he sued the US Department of Justice they send him back now you have to ask yourself in the case of Julian Assange who's also been given these diplomatic assurances do you think that he's going to get any sort of luck like that I want to read you what the assurances to Assange say because the US said they won't place him in special administrative measures in these oppressive prison conditions that's not what it says in the assurance they said that they won't put him in Sam's unless quote in the event that after the entry of this assurance he was to commit any future act that met the test for the imposition of a Sam so once again the United States is giving an assurance which is not really assuring it has a back door they're giving themselves the right to not comply with it they can just get Assange in the US and say oh well you know he did something that meets the test for an imposition of a Sam and now we have to put him in special administrative measures oops same thing with the Assurances to Mendoza it's so vague it's not even really an assurance so the other thing that Assange can serve his sentence in Australia this doesn't work like that just because the United States says okay you can go do your sentence in Australia it doesn't mean that he can go to Australia Australia has to say yes we accept Assange we will take him has Australia said that no how do I know this never in the court case I can assure you they have said nothing so you know Australia is a 5 eyes country the US can just go in back channels talk to Australians say screw this guy don't take Assange don't say anything just be silent just stay silent which is what Australia has been doing so Assange effectively has no guarantee that he can serve his sentence in Australia because Australia hasn't said it would take him the assurances that he won't be placed in special administrative measures or jailed in ADX Florence can be overturned and then the US can say we never promised we said that maybe he won't go to ADX maybe he won't be put in SAMS and Assange won't be able to contest this because if he goes to court if the US violates its assurances and Assange goes to court the US will say well did you sign anything with us and Assange will say no you're not a signatory of the extradition treaty obviously Assange will say no and then they'll say well sorry we can't do anything because you don't have a claim we didn't sign anything with you the United Kingdom they have a claim and so Assange has to go pressure the United Kingdom like Mendoza had to go in pressure Spain to pressure the US you think Assange is going to be able to pressure the UK to pressure the US to comply with the conditions of his extradition you're dreaming you are dreaming Mendoza got lucky in conclusion when the lead prosecutor James Lewis says the US have never broken a diplomatic assurance that's just untrue it's just simply untrue and I have the proof right here in front of me the proof is right there in the article even if the United States actually made an explicit assurance that we will never put Assange in ADX or in SAMS and we will do everything in our power to make sure he serves his sentence in Australia can you trust them because they signed a contract that was very explicit with Spain and let me tell you they did not keep their word this was as explicit as it gets so these assurances are not assurances they are a way for the United States to cheat the legal system to get Assange into US jurisdiction and then finito and David Mendoza you know what he told me he said that if the United States did that to him what are they going to do to Julian Assange when Julian Assange I was at his bail hearing in January January 6 even though he won the extradition case against the United States the US prosecution said you can't give him bail because he'll just run off again that was their argument they said that he has a history of doing this like he went to the Ecuadorian embassy I mean that's not really bail jumping if you're given political asylum which is your right under international law but that was their argument they said you can't trust him he won't come back when there are future court dates when we appeal this decision he won't be here and the judge accepted this she said that yes I accept the argument that he's a flight risk and so on okay so if you're going to say that Assange is denied bail because he has a past a behavior of of bail jumping well you can't accept the US assurances because the United States has a history of violating them I mean these documents blow the entire prosecution's case out of the water these documents have not been submitted in court yet the judges have not seen these documents they must see these documents because any judge any sane rational person who reads this would be convinced that you cannot trust US assurances so Richard Minthers is a dynamo it's great I was going to ask Arthur Chesterfield Evans to come to the microphone to really highlight right on that issue of the risk that Julian Assange would face on his health if he was put in that US prison that we're all talking about so Arthur here you go thanks Peter I'm not a world expert on strokes but I just want to give some medical common sense really if you've got a fridge magnet about strokes you'll see the slogan is fast which stands for face, arm, speech and time as you may know if you have a stroke you're the bottom half of your face sags particularly the corner of your mouth because the nerves keep the smile up your arm on the other side usually is the one that's weak the weakness on the other side and your speech gets slurred and these are the three key symptoms and what you do about it is hurry up and get them to hospital fast face, arm, speech and time and generally 85% roughly of strokes are caused by clots or thrombosis in other words lumps of gunk blocking arteries and the other 15% are caused by bleeds and it did bother me when I was a student that I couldn't quite figure out how you told a bleed from a thrombosis and people said yes should be able to do this but I'm pleased to know that the new guidelines say you can't tell the difference clinically if a bit of brain doesn't work you don't know whether the cause of that is a bleed or a clot so you do an MRI scan which will give you the diagnosis in 83% of cases and it's far better than a CT which gives you the diagnosis in 23% of cases so you've got to get to hospital quickly and then they do a scan and then if it's a clot which is commoner you go on anticoagulants quickly to get rid of that clot because of course if a bit of the body doesn't have blood it dies and the brain dies quite quickly and so you've got to break that clot up as you have to break up a clot when you have a heart attack so anticoagulants quickly are a major new treatment that's coming in the last one I suppose not that recently, 20 or 25 years ago but it makes a lot of difference and you do have to act quickly now if you're in an isolated cell for 23 and a half hours a day with no one taking too much interest in what happens to you because you're being punished by being in that cell then clearly you're not going to get that treatment and it might be said much expertise in this area as some others but there is a culture in prisons which whatever the judges may say and whatever the lawyers do we're running this prison mate and we're going to say what's going to happen and I went on a couple of prison visits while I was in parliament interestingly enough and one person I quite call a patient that's probably not what I should say and there was suicidal in Silverwater prison right here in Sydney and so their shoelaces were taken away there were no hanging points in the cell they did never built they did never put down a cord they couldn't kill themselves and this person was running up against the wall and bashing their head against the wall to try and commit suicide so the solution was put a helmet on them but they couldn't get off so that if this person was trying to commit suicide running against the wall bashing their heads they couldn't so from the prison's point of view hey the problem's solved in fact they're so depressed they're trying to kill themselves it's not the problem the only problem would be if they succeeded on our shift right so you've got to understand the mentality here and of course if we go from strokes to talk about mental health it's one thing to be in a problem situation if for example you're Ukrainian and the Russians attack you you're in a bad situation but the whole country is in this situation and you can understand what's going on if you look at people with PTSD or bullying or other things that cause mental health problems and now let's say cause as opposed to some intrinsic factor that you've got some psychosis if you look at the mental health that is caused it's when someone is isolated and particularly targeted and if you look at the things in Assange's case he went into the Ecuadorian embassy for asylum and pressure on the government there made them release him and he's now in prison and I can't quite understand why because he's a flight risk well he would be wouldn't he want to charge him with something which technically he's not an American citizen so he shouldn't be under the jurisdiction so I mean all these things are personal to him and when we heard in a talk here I think it was in this very hall but about when he released the data he disgusted with a whole bunch of journalists of very powerful developers in the New York Times I think and the Guardian and the material was to be released and it was to be released selectively to try and minimise the damage and in fact he wasn't the first to publish the stuff right but he's the one targeted all the newspaper editors never even criticised and God knows they haven't been too supportive of him have they despite the fact that he gave them all those stories so in terms of personal stress that was before all these solitary confinement he's been in and the massive threats and the assumption that the British would stand up for justice even when the Americans leaned on them and the Swedes of course buckled very easily and conveniently he assumed that justice would would succeed so he his personal thing quite apart from the personal level being kept through 23 and a half hours in solitary confinement the whole element of trust that you have of the world has been demolished for him personally so if you look at the mental health stresses that he's put under nothing I'm saying is brilliant but you just have to bring the elements together and recognise what they're doing so he has grave danger from a stroke point of view and I believe immense danger from a mental health point of view and we have to remember this guy's a human being who's done good for humanity and we have to base our appeal on that thank you very much Arthur so just think about how long it would be before Julian Assange could get an MRI if he had a stroke in a US prison okay now we gonna have a rap on the whole picture Joe Laurier he's the editor of Continuum News and sorry sorry consortium news my apologies and let's just see how he does it let's go thank you for inviting me to speak to this important event tonight I'm in London having last Tuesday attended John Pilger's funeral it's been a great loss to Australia to the United States to Britain and to the world since the US began its legal pursuit of Julian Assange the world has changed dramatically bringing new risks to the United States if it continues to pursue him to the end the geostrategic situation and the state of the media are today nearly run recognisable from 2010 when the US impaneled a grand jury to and died Assange conditions have changed significantly even since 2019 when he was dragged from the embassy and the indictment was unveiled the United States is in the midst of suffering its third major strategic defeats since the process against Assange began bringing potentially significant consequences for the United States the world and possibly Assange in just the past three years the United States has experienced humiliating defeats in Afghanistan Ukraine and now Gaza Afghanistan heard Americans sensitivities about their precious prestige which American elites care so much about the rest of the world takes it into its geostrategic calculations the US instigation of war in Ukraine intended to weaken Russia and bring down its government has instead turned into a debacle for the United States and Europe of world historical proportions a new commercial financial and diplomatic system has emerged in opposition to the US dominated West this had been slowly developing but was accelerated by Washington's provocation in Ukraine is a way more serious problem for the United States than mere loss of prestige add to this the worldwide condemnation the United States is facing complicity in Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza it's in a war that both the United States and Israel is not winning the result of all this is that US legitimacy has significantly weakened around the world and at home is this the moment then to bring a journalist to the United States and change to stand trial for publishing truthful material that exposed earlier crimes by the United States the risks of doing so at this moment a very different moment from 2010 are serious for the US at home and abroad domestically the bill of rights is at stake internationally the bully is losing its credibility this is seen in the forthrightness of some world leaders particularly in Latin America who in the spirit of this new non-US world have confronted the United States of Assange and have demanded his release the established media which by definition runs cover for the US to commit crimes and abuses wherever its interests are challenged is suffering its own precipitous loss of legitimacy the spectacular growth of both social and independent media's influence since 2010 has helped create a worldwide movement in defense of Assange and the basic principles of a free press the question is how aware is the Biden administration of this new world and how will it react at a certain point US hubris and intransigence would seem to be headed for collapse but until then Washington will no doubt double down in denial and in vengeance it's not giving up in Ukraine nor in a Gaza the neocon grip on power and Washington over the realists remains will the extremists remain ascended on Assange too in December 2010 Vice President Joe Biden told the television news show Meet the Press that the Obama administration could only indict Assange if they caught him red handed stealing government secrets and not receiving them passively as a journalist the Obama administration concluded he was acting as a journalist even if they refused to call him one and didn't indict him so what changed for Biden what does he persist in this prosecution begun by his mortal enemy Donald Trump and Trump CIA director Mike Pompeo the indictment until today still only deals with events in 2010 nothing has changed legally but everything has changed politically for President Biden the head of the Democratic Party with the 2016 DNC leaks and the CIA vault seven releases the following year Biden would have held to pay from the DNC and the CIA if he dropped the case still he's probably not so foolish to want a shackled journalist showing up on US shores to stand trial in the midst of his reelection campaign the high court here in London has been good at dragging things out and could easily do so until after November the Assange case is thus a centerpiece of this global challenge to US dominance that did not exist in 2010 to the extent that US leaders are aware of what is happening to US standing in the world their propensity is to lash out with the only argument they have left lethal force in Assange's case it is legal force with lethal consequences leniency towards Assange would win back some respect the United States has lost which would mean it couldn't suffer another blow had finally walked into the new world and inhabits crushing him would be yet another step towards its demise the US really doesn't need him it has enough blood on its hands thank you very much Joe Laurier oh that was very sobering assessment and view there so could you all give another round of applause for all the presentations we received this evening thank you very much to all our speakers we're gonna have a 10 minute break which you can get a drink and think about this and then we'll have the question and answer session so please take the break and while that's on we'll be playing some songs that have been written about Julian Assange over this 13 years or so that this fight's been going on so thank you very much imagine a world where criminals are worshiped and it's the innocent they're filling up the earth with those that expose them in literal internment judges working with murderers are giving them the verdict if Blair was in jail they're in a cell punished for his war crimes would he be wearing it well instead he's on the news without a care in the world pontificating about how it dears he can sell what if your crimes were reflected in your face would they waste time on George Bush in his portrait Assange exposed the info for your sake for our sake now they drag him through this court case they don't fight fair enemies quite clear they want to give him 175 years many dead for ideas if heaven could cry tears forever the war on terror would threaten your nightmares steal babies nappies yet he did that thing tell that liar Pompeo we should kidnap him tell that pimp sit back with his big fat grin his signature can kill people does it impact him they want songs I can't make a happy clappy one they don't want real journalists there can be none we gave space to the murderers what have we done CIA agent British soil killed harry dunn your walls are falling down they're there calling they're there calling now they want their justice they want their justice now just another day in these colonized aisles spying on lawyers meetings a compromise trial bombers ride wild there's a homicidal smile on the face of the agent spreading hololies and bio story about the CIA you never spotting films about a person and a journalist they want to kill they launch to the public still wasn't real till he revealed the horrors spilled in a foreign field hanging in his cell they tied the rope it's not a war against a person it's your right to know plotting cameras and microphones in the tightest zones because these psychos tried to hone their mind control cameras in the toilets yeah they did that too throw the case out of court they just have to hope to murder him in London yeah they made that plan the British can do the shooting they won't save that man they gamble with their angles but the scandal won't fade totalitarian rats have it both ways seven years in the embassy a man that won't cave who told us they locked children in Guantanamo bay first casualty of war we were armed with the truth despite the carnage we aren't gonna move every time you see the face of a sange on the news remember it's not him the real target is you the poor get bullets and the bombers get medals contracts for the rich and the sell for the rebels the poor get bullets and the bombers get medals contracts for the rich and the sell for the rebels the poor get bullets and the bombers get medals contracts for the rich and the sell for the rebels the poor get bullets and the bombers get medals contracts for the rich and the sell for the rebels your walls are falling your walls are falling down your walls are falling your walls are falling down the dead are calling the dead are calling now the dead are calling now they want their justice they want their justice now They want their justice now Your walls are falling Your walls are falling down They're dead off They want their justice They want their justice now People often ask, what can I do? The answer is not so difficult Learn how the world works Challenge the statements and intentions of those who seek to control us behind the facade of democracy and monarchy Unite in common purpose and common principle to design, build, document, finance and defend Learn, challenge, act, now I was set up My credit was gone I was a patsy In a world gone wrong Because I revealed That the truth was a lie Though I committed no sin I committed no crime So they locked me away And buried the key So that the world would Forget about me Now I'm the boy in the bubble I'm the link in the chain I'm the cause and the trouble The spring and new pain Changed the world to a peace train On a broken bridge It was over And the fear recedes You'll see that you demean With just a little old pain And say which one of our great speakers tonight You want to be answering it Or all of them if you want And we'll see just how we go So if we've got anybody who would like to say something About all of what we've heard My name is Loretta Picconi And I volunteer in the social justice area And congratulations to all the speakers It's really moving and seems such a critical time The concern I have is to try and explore more The medical management by the UK government In terms of how Julian is generally handled And specifically for the ischemic incident that occurred I say that because having listened to a lot of Enough royal commissions where you can see The side effects of medications You know, there are medications that can affect The synoid of the heart and compromise someone And it only takes another condition for a prisoner To then become very vulnerable and can be lethal In the case, for example, of David Dungay Jr. He's dead So I'd encourage either Arthur or David To explore the medical management Just you gave the example of the Mendoza, was it? And how finding a means to put pressure on government May actually have a flow and effect If there was an opportunity to put pressure On any mismanagement or as you were suggesting There was slow response to what was probably A critical incident But also his general medical management His medical management just prior to attending court I'd encourage that no stone be turned on those issues Welcome a comment You go first Your position is if you don't know much Don't say much, right? And I think what Julian's situation is Wasn't clear medically I mean, I don't think they wanted it to be clear I don't think the doctors could really see What was going except by observation So in terms of commenting I would say it's more in terms of his civil rights And having access to medicine And having the doctors having access to him Is the key thing really And the whole thing His whole life really is cloaked in secrecy really And I'm reluctant to say his health was this or that Or the medications were this or that We don't know what they were And in that he was said to have a TIA Which is a transient ischemic attack It was brought to be caused by clusters of platelets Blocking blood vessels temporarily And it's called transient because it goes away In a reasonably short period A stroke of course is when the blockage in the artery Persists and has a long term effect It would seem that he had a transient ischemic attack It went for longer than transient ischemic attacks Go by definition and so it was called a stroke And then it would seem that he got 100% recovery But again I haven't seen a neurological report on that So I'm reluctant to say anything except to say that Really this locking people up Not letting them see their lawyers, their doctors Or anybody else and damaging their mental health Is not the way anybody should be treated Particularly a journalist so Yes there's a lot of medical risk Quantifying it and particularising it And requires more transparency than we've had So I'd go to the lawyers who would ask about his rights Perhaps David could talk more about that Well it's a great question But I'm not a mental health expert I'm not an expert on strokes But there has been somebody who did consider the evidence And considered all the evidence that was presented And did it in your hope in impartial way And that's the trial judge And the trial judge found That there was evidence of a risk to Mr. Assange's health If he was to face trial she actually found Mr. Assange's risk of committing suicide If an extradition order were to be made To be substantial She's heard the evidence and that was her finding And she then found that because of that It would be and I quote her again Unjust and oppressive by reason of Mr. Assange's Mental condition to be detained In US prison authorities So US prison So the genius if I can put it that way In the successful appeal from that Was to say well it doesn't matter what she found Because we have assurances So all I can point to is the only time Somebody independent has reviewed the evidence They've found that there's a very, very real risk A substantial risk to his health And to his life from suicide If he's extradited I think that's the globally best evidence of the moment My understanding is that Australia Is the only place that has hospitals inside prisons I might stand corrected on that But I wondered if there was any argument there Well I can't speak to that I think Arthur's observation earlier that Your likelihood of getting prompt treatment For a condition like a stroke or another health Another life threatening illness in a prison system Is much, much lower than in the general population Whether that's an Australian prison Or a UK prison or a US prison You've got many more barriers to health treatment Than you do out in relays One of the many reasons We should be living in the number of people We put in jail including Julian Okay Scott would you like to come Yeah thank you And thanks for the speakers for such strong presentations And for everybody who's put the event together tonight Thank you all for being here My question is to David Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese You've kind of settled on this holding line A year or so ago that we think this has gone far enough But it's been very difficult to draw them out On what they're actually doing behind the scenes If anything If in the next three weeks they do manage To shift Julian very rapidly to the US I feel like that line is going to become untenable But what is it that we need to do And what is it going to take to shift them From that very passive neutral language Of oh we think it's gone on too long To action And the way that we saw with David Hicks Where even John Howard eventually On the strength of a public campaign Was brought along to do something So what is it that we need to do Yeah Well thanks Scott And I want to acknowledge your work Of course Scott is a much luck former Green Senator And I know did significant work When he was in the Senate on the Sanchez case And in many ways I feel like I picked up Your work Scott So thank you and I want to acknowledge that work That you did I think you're right that line It's gone on too long Or it's gone on long enough And it needs to come to an end When he's ex If he is extradited I hope he won't be And I hope that the UK proceedings Follow that different legal pathway And I think that's probably a solution For the Biden administration It's a solution for the Albanese administration And it's a solution for the UK administration So that would be a good solution For everybody If they ended the extradition proceedings In accordance with law in the UK But if that doesn't happen And he is extradited I think straight away It's going to become apparent He's facing years and years of trial And then the prospect of years And years of further detention In the US Because the US law basically says If you spill our secrets you're guilty Regardless of whether that was Public interest It's not public interest defence Like it is a brutal Legal system that he faces in the US So I think it's become untenable From the moment it happens But we have seen the Albanese government Be willing to just stick to their pathetic lines Regardless of the truth Regardless of the feelings In the Australian public Where we I don't want to bleed to issues into this But we're seeing it happening About Palestine and Gaza at the moment A totally untenable line Continuing to be just repeated And regurgitated by our Foreign Minister And our Prime Minister Because they don't want to separate themselves In the United States So I think what it I don't expect our rapid change In their language But what I do expect is a Further unmasking Of just how little independence our government Thinks it has from the United States On issues like this And I think that unmasking Is going to be a powerful political tool And a tool with the public To force the government to change But Scott, you know I would be interested in your thoughts on it as well You know, my sense is It'll be an unmasking moment And it'll probably take months To change the government's opinion But we need to use those months To pressure the government to change its position And actively advocate for his return My name's Ian Rose I'm a member of the Local Sydney Community Group Like many of you We've been fighting this for 14 years now And we all know, as we live In a penal colony ourselves That the penal system always If you call out On a particular issue Somebody's health issue Then they'll make that person's life harder Julian, when he had a stroke for example Was at the prison system There was an operation coming out for nine weeks If it was the case What can we do about it? It's like a journalist issue Mary, why? Well, I don't know why it took so long It was evident When you looked at Julian That there was something terribly wrong And I'm not a doctor, I'm a journalist But, you know, when One side of your face troops Then What comes to mind is that You've had a stroke I have no idea I think during that time I recall the family Tried to get An independent medical assessment Of Julian I don't know if they were able to Achieve that But the prison system has A complete control over you Of course And even when it comes to Access to the prisoner They make it extraordinarily difficult It took me a very, very long time To get approval To see Julian And so They frustrate His Access to him By family And friends and supporters And When it comes to You know, medical treatment I We had no idea what's happening in there Something else happened To Julian During the US appeal hearing Which I haven't really shared Before, publicly I have discussed it With Kathy Vogan because when it happened I picked up the phone And said, Kathy Can you see what's happening to him So When he moved away From out of shot Then there was a break At some point So they break for about an hour Everyone goes to lunch And if you're on the video link You walk away, you go to the loo You make a cup of tea Make a sandwich, whatever I happened to have Everything I needed near me Nothing, chocolate Water, I didn't have to move So I thought I'd catch up with my tweeting So I'm surrounded by my I've got two iPads going The phone and my Computer And I Oh, the sudden, he's back I thought, what's happening He's back Courts adjourned You know, it's broken for lunch He's sitting in a chair Not the chair he was in Before He's not at a table There's no monitor The area in front of him is clear And all of a sudden He starts to move very, very rapidly Like this And I thought, I don't believe I'm seeing this What is this? Are they running a tape? Is it a tape that they're Because when you run a tape in reverse There's a certain course of action This is this very repetitive Very quick Involuntary movement And he was bending quite low You know So I Was able to raise Kathy But of course, by the time she got back He had stopped doing this But the camera was still on him So she saw that he was there I don't know if anyone else saw Or that he was Obviously Someone made a mistake And switched him through To us, to the video link So I wondered What this could possibly be And I called a Neurologist to ask him An opinion Has he ever heard about Anyone having this Symptom or this behaviour And he said It's well documented But very rare That people have Can have this very rapid Involuntary Movement Due to stress Due to great stress Now I had never heard of it before I've I've seen it I couldn't believe my eyes Because it didn't look human The speed was not Something that We would normally do Even if we're Under stress and angry It was not It wasn't a controlled action Is what I'm saying So There are many things that concern Me deeply about Julian's State The state of his health And Alternately It's the case that You know The trouble that Dan Duggan's wife Is having, Dan Duggan is Being held In Solitary confinement In New South Wales This is extraordinary that we treat People as if I mean Even if you're a convicted terrorist You still have human rights You're not supposed to treat People like that But for some reason We believe that this cruelty Is acceptable And so Your human rights are taken away Really You don't have The human rights that you ought to have So Keeping people informed about your medical condition Or making sure You get Treatment quickly I We have no idea We have no idea I think we've got Two more questions If you'd like to go first And the second one after that And then we'll have the wrap up from the panel Thank you panel It's very good discussion We all seem to put a lot of emphasis On The British court system Now how much Relying can we have Given that Sunak is trying All his means To overturn the Rwanda situation I don't know whether you're for it I think there's something more to it He's trying to not challenge But put something along the way So that he can still continue To send people to Rwanda It seems that we rely very much On the goodness of the judge itself You never know on that day Perhaps Peter or Mary can comment on it The other thing I want to say Is that the last two speakers On the video was Quite good In that the last speaker I don't know what's his name The American guy He's saying that America A lot of people are now Not believing his hegemony To get recognized And given the political Climate that The election is coming All concentration On Biden is On winning the election And even Albanese and Pennywalk Do you think they are still interested? I don't think so They are just peddling their little politics I think the guy sums it up In that America Is trying its best To still re-exit His political hegemony And they will do all it can To show they are on top What do you all think about that? Thank you, and now the second question please Hi, my name is Noel I'd like to thank All the speakers tonight I've been following this Just about as long as It's been going I've really appreciated the work you've done I'm amazed that you can all Maintain such Levelness in your Speech when you must be I'd imagine boiling inside With anger as I am At the absolute abuse Of process that has been Going on Through the American government The British government, the Swedes The Australian government There's been an absolute abuse Of process as I'm sure you all probably know Far better than I do I really appreciated David's comment before about The need to Expose The Australian government's compliance Obedience to the US To the Five Eyes Alliance And My question is Around how do we Further Expose that because I believe As my t-shirt says that It is purely a political case That all the appeals To the Faith in the justice system Has been shown to be Misplaced It's been totally abused So it has to be resolved politically How do we do that How do we best apply The pressure That will Get To change their stance Thank you. Well I suppose that's the core issue for the campaign So I think, thank you for the question I might deal with, try and deal with the two questions together The reason we continue To engage in the legal proceedings And continue to make representations the cleverly And continue to do That work and the reason Jen Robertson And others continue to engage in the court system Is because You've got to give it a red hot go, don't you And I think If you have a look at what's happening at the moment In the UK where they're trying to change the law To prevent the courts From looking at individual cases in Rwanda It goes to show That the government is trying to The UK government is trying to pull the courts Out of that analysis Because they're worried the courts might actually Come to an independent conclusion When it comes to Rwanda And the prospect of I think the quite awful prospect And to Rwanda So they don't want the courts to have an independent review And that's why they were Pushing the appeal case In the Assange case To prevent the courts from having an independent review Of what will happen to Julian They don't want that to happen Because we saw from the trial that when they do it They say actually you shouldn't go So I think we continue to put There's a rationale to continue To put effort in the legal system And in fact in many ways The government to take the courts Out of the Rwanda issue Is kind of proof that It's worthwhile continuing to put that That energy in But of course you're right too that the answer is ultimately Political and I think The pressure we can put on For Albanese and Penny Wong To actually finally Make a clear demand For not just this To end at some point Because it could end by him being imprisoned For 50 years in the US The pressure, the language we want Is he must be returned to Australia As a free citizen of Australia To go back to his family And be returned free That's the language we want But I think we should also recognize that The next 12 months in the US is likely to be Sort of bruising 12 months And there may well be opportunities in the US To put pressure on the Biden administration To end the extradition You know I can't imagine anything worse Than an election year as we said earlier Than trying to put A journalist in jail forever Can I just add to that The issue that both of you Really were Pointing to was that The fact that we are a subservient To the United States We're a sub-imperial state That's a long-term problem And I think the only way To turn that around Is to attempt to effectively Try to turn it around Is to change the balance of power In Parliament We need more people Like David, like Scott In Parliament Who aren't prepared to set aside Their humanity You know To make decisions about critical issues About us And our fellow human beings On the planet Until we have more people Like that in Parliament This is what's going to happen We're going to have to fight these Battles Constantly I really do think that's the only thing That can help We have to think about who we're Voting for I suppose I can only add to what The other two have said As far as the questions are concerned And your question is And I suppose I haven't got much time for the legal system here I think it's mainly a money-making talkfest But In terms of It's easier to change something Through the legal system than the political system And get a decision From the legal system Which does Relate to principles of law And although As this whole debacle With Julian has shown The political system will kick The legal system around When it suits And actually pass laws to stop the legal system Doing justice And That's a problem with the political system But it still It still pays lip service to the Legal system and says We exist By the rule of law And the fact that it Finds it hard to deny A legal victory leads to a political victory later The only other thing I can say About the political system is We need to take the power back from the major parties Because they are easily bought And we should go to a Swiss system That requires a whole change The constitution and that's another A debate for another time Okay Well, I would like to Ask you all to thank again our presenters And all the contributors That have come to us online as well For tonight, thank you very much So for Julian Our heart goes out to him and his family We're going to be Focused on what happens on February 20 and 21 And the campaign Will give the next step, I'm sure So be prepared to do More when we know Clearly what the lay of the land is We're going to finish with A message from John Pilger If anyone wants to make a donation To the Julian Assange campaign You can come up here afterwards And we'll make sure the money gets through To the campaign, which is desperately needs Any help, okay Thank you very much In Australia, one of the things That was always Impressed upon me Was that we were A brave country You know, a lot of our national myths Are centered around that And of course myths are half true That we Were brave, we stood up to Authority, we stood up For Good things and justice In our political life I don't see much evidence of that But now and then Certain Australians Make all those myths Come true Julian Assange is one of those I know Julian Assange pretty well Now I see him Several times a week In all sorts of situations Discussions about His case here in London And various other things I find him An extraordinarily brave Australian And I can't say that About many of my compatriots In the same way There aren't brave Australians But I can't think Of any that has really been So unusually brave As Julian I mean, brave in Weathering Everything that he has had to go through As he described it recently The worst year of his life Brave in standing up To a superpower I've had some experience Of that myself So I know A little bit about it Brave in starting a project That he knew Would get him into trouble The best kind of trouble This kind of trouble That informs People That respects their right to know About Those who govern them Those who make war in their name So when he started WikiLeaks He knew that It was going to be A rocky road And one of the things that of course Almost has never come out Of the generally appalling Media coverage Of Julian and WikiLeaks Is the reason for WikiLeaks It had a moral base It was about justice It's written He wrote it on the Home page of the first WikiLeaks And It wasn't Necessarily Finally defined But he used that expression He nailed his colours And the colours of WikiLeaks to the mast This was going to be about justice It was about seeking justice Through letting people know What is going on To letting people know What those who have power Of their lives are saying I can't tell you how brave this is Many people have tried to do this And failed Julian has succeeded actually Because The information That he has got out to people All over the world Has made a difference We can't exactly quantify What we do Because information Is not necessarily quantifiable It drips through, it percolates It gets into people's consciousness They internalize it And above all it gives them the strength And the knowledge and the power to act And nothing changes in the world Without that information Nothing It has to come first And he has become An extraordinary provider Of that information He should be You know If we Regard the place we were born And grew up in Some sort of special Thing, I suppose it is I'm not sure I'm Terribly strong nationalist But If we are to talk of Australians Australians Given something to the rest of humanity Then Julian is That person He deserves at the very least The very least The support Of ordinary people Right throughout his country I know he's getting it actually Because I helped to Arrange A big public event In March in Sydney One hall filled with 2,000 people 300 Were outside So I know that he has He's touched That popular nerve And that Australians Do support him Whatever the government does But what they must do Is bring That message of that support To the Australian government So that the government Will Give him the right that he Has and that is the right To be protected As an Australian citizen By his government Because he faces Great peril at the moment That he could well If he ends up in Sweden We don't know if he's going to But if he ends up in Sweden He could be sent on to the United States Where He will end up In the kind of conditions That Bradley Manning Has had to endure And I'm not saying the two are Associated, they're not So that prospect Awaits him And it can only be Seen off By Popular power People in Australia We won't have this We won't have this happen To our fellow Australian Who has served us and the world With such distinction and bravery