 The truth about Assange is that he's broken far more stories than all the rest of us put together. It's almost ten years since the collateral murder video was released, which is this footage of a helicopter gunship strike in Iraq which killed two Reuters photojournalists. They're out to get him because he embarrassed power. He exposed crimes committed against humanity on our behalf without our knowledge. And this is the only charge against him really. These are the publications that WikiLeaks has won journalism awards the world over. Julian has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but he faces 175 years in prison because the Trump administration is going to try and make it a crime to do journalism. Earlier this year, one of the most high-profile legal trials in recent British history began at Woolwich Grand Court in London. In the dark stands this man, Julian Assange, who for his work revealing American state secrets, stands accused of espionage. The US is for the first time ever using the Espionage Act against a publisher. This is the first time in history that a statute designed to prosecute treason is being used against a journalist and a publisher. This is possible because of the UK-US extradition treaty, which requires the UK to provide cooperation to the United States. Typically, being prosecuted for something which is a straightforward political offence, espionage is a political offence, would be barred. So this case is an abuse on so many fronts. It's setting a precedent that any journalist or publisher could be indicted in the United States, sought for extradition, and prosecuted for publishing truthful information about the United States. That is the precedent that's being set with this case and why it is so dangerous. Not just for Julian Assange, but for journalists everywhere. The Iraq and Afghanistan war logs in 2010 shone a light on the brutal nature of American intervention. Assange's advocates claim WikiLeaks changed the face of journalism. This one implaudits, but also inevitably powerful enemies. The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. For a time it was this dichotomy that shaped the world's view of Assange. He was a man hated by the defenders of empire and adored by its opponents. But in December 2010, this clear-cut narrative was to be disrupted. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has been put on Interpol's most wanted list. In connection with a case of alleged sexual assault in Sweden, allegations of sexual assault against Assange were both serious and credible. Yet his supporters would point to procedural irregularities and questioned the motives of Swedish and British prosecutors. Citing fear of honouring extradition to the US, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. He was able to continue his work in that location for quite a long time and WikiLeaks released several documents that solved the importance during that era. But in April 2019, after almost seven years in the embassy, Ecuador, now under a new government, revoked Assange's asylum. And the British police were able to make an arrest. Once in custody for breaching bail, the Swedes would reopen the sexual assault case against Assange. But five months later, the case was closed again due to the weakening of evidence under the time elapsed. But this coincided with Donald Trump's arrest to power and the US State Department, now led by Mike Pompeo, made the extradition request Assange had always feared. I had good friends of mine saying, oh come on, they would never extradite me. There's not even a process for extraditing to the United States. Now we know that Julian was right. WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. So Mike Pompeo effectively described WikiLeaks as a non-governmental, hostile intelligence service. And I thought that was brilliant, because this is exactly what WikiLeaks is. He effectively issued a statement that every journalism should take very seriously. We're out to get you to the extent that you can be hostile and gather intelligence as a non-governmental organization against us, those who are in power. You are on our hit list. The Obama administration systematically went through every single way that you could possibly think of of prosecuting Julian. But they eventually decided not to do what the Trump administration is doing by prosecuting Julian for the receipt of important public interest information and its publication and for communicating with the source. They are threatening the New York Times, as much as they're threatening WikiLeaks. For the Obama administration, that was a step too far. But for the Trump administration, unfortunately, that's a feature, not a bug. He's going to talk about WikiLeaks. You had nothing to do with the leaking of the documents. No, but I think it's disgraceful. You do think it's disgraceful? Yeah, they should be like death peddled or something. Due to the coronavirus, Assange's hearing has been postponed until September this year. Whatever the outcome, the political implications for whistleblowing journalism and indeed democracy itself may depend on the fate of Julian Assange. I'm amazed that the British media has covered this in a way it has sort of neutral way, not much reporting. It's a massive case about freedom of the press, ultimately. And the implication for journalism across the world, not just in Britain, is massive. We have a moment here, whilst he's still in the UK, where our government could actually step up and act in the interest of freedom of expression and many other human rights obligations and not hand them over to be prosecuted in the US. If Julian Assange can be extradited to face prosecution for this, then so too could the editor of the Guardian, so too could the editor of the Telegraph. And that's what people ought to be concerned about. Let's be clear about this. Are we going to empower journalists to be hostile critics of power as liberalism, not just radicalism, but liberalism, would dictate or not?