 We journalists around the globe express our grave concern for Julian Assange's detention in a high-security British prison. And for the unprecedented espionage charges he faces in the United States. If he is extradited to the US, he could receive a sentence of 175 years in prison. This is the first time a publisher is being prosecuted for disclosing classified information. This is why I am speaking up in defence of Julian Assange. Now, at this dangerous time, he is being prosecuted for the crime of revealing war crimes. It is a terrible miscarriage of justice. And as a president, threatens our journalist colleagues working all around the globe. Without WikiLeaks, we wouldn't know about the evidence of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. NAC spying on world leaders and UN representatives, abuse and torture at Guantanamo and other sites, and much more. Publishing classified information and the public interest is an essential part of journalism. Many of the media outlets we work for release these stories alongside WikiLeaks. If the US government can extradite Assange for this, it will clear the way for governments to criminalize any of us, anywhere in the world. Who will be next? Journalists and publishers should be able to shed light on government's wrongdoing without the fear of being jailed. We, journalists of many countries, demand that Assange be released immediately from prison. That the UK government and judiciary refuse to permit a politically motivated extradition. And that the US government drop the charges of espionage. What happens to Julian Assange could happen to all of us. This is just wrong on so many levels. It's about freedom of the media and the persecution of the journalists. It's about the US claims of extraterritoriality. It's about the bilateral relationship between Australia and the US and the UK and the US. And the fact that the Australian government and the British government think their relationship with Washington is more important than the rule of law. More important than justice. More important than sticking up for our own citizens when they're in strife overseas. I call again on our Prime Minister to pick up the phone to the US President. He didn't do it with the previous US President, but he can do it now with the new US President. Joe Biden is very fond of our wonderful country and he has said it as much publicly. He would pick up the phone. He would listen to it passionately for common sense from our Prime Minister. But it hasn't happened yet because our Prime Minister is more concerned with our relationship with Washington than with sticking up for an Australian citizen who did the right thing and is now bizarrely still in prison even though he won his case for the extradition. I mean, this is basically indefinite detention and that's a crime against humanity. That's against the Rome Statute. But what's our government doing about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. This is so wrong on so many levels. It's about a year ago now that I visited Julian in Belmarsh with George Christensen and I can speak with personal experience of what a dreadful place Belmarsh prison is. It's the last place to detain a journalist. It's the last place to detain someone who won their court case and should have been allowed to walk free. It's the last place to keep someone who is not a flight risk. His family's in London. He's hardly going to flee. This is wrong on so many levels. Welcome to CN Live, episode 3 of season 3. Tonight, lawmakers for Assange. I'm Joe Laurier, editor-in-chief of Consortium News. And I'm Elizabeth Boss. Two years ago today, WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange was forcibly removed from political asylum inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London and placed under arrest. He was then charged under the US Espionage Act for publishing defense information that revealed prima facie evidence of US war crimes as well as for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. Assange won his extradition hearing on health grounds on January 4th, but his judge who agreed with all the charges against him threw Assange back into Belmarsh prison in London while waiting appeal where he has languished for these two years. Insights into Britain's role in Assange's expulsion have been revealed in a recently published diary by the former UK Foreign Minister at the time, Sir Alan Duncan. Operation Pelican, as it was called by the Foreign Office, involved many months of negotiation on Duncan's part with the government of Ecuador to have Assange stripped of his assailee status and citizenship and evicted. Duncan paints a vivid picture of watching the arrest from the operations room at the top of the foreign office. Duncan wrote on Friday, October 19th, that the Ecuador ambassador said they have taken away Julian Assange's cat after living in their embassy for five years where he sought asylum. Assange today launched a lawsuit against the Ecuadorian government for violating his human rights but probably for restricting his internet rather than taking away his cat. On Wednesday, March 13th, Duncan wrote, Ecuador Ambassador Jaime Marchana is determined to get Assange out of his embassy but President Moreno requires a final push in order to be persuaded to press the button. On Thursday, March 28th, he wrote, I think I am nearly there with Ecuador to get Julian Assange out of their London embassy. It has taken months of delicate negotiations but nearly, nearly. On Thursday, April 11th, 2019, the day of Assange's arrest, Duncan jotted down in his diary. Suddenly it's game on. I'm told Assange will be sprung from the Ecuador embassy today so I dropped everything and head to the operations room at the top of the foreign office. Operation Pelican is go. Suitably assisted by one official wearing a Pelican motif tie. We watch a live feed which ironically was available on the web from Russia today. Bang on, 10 a.m., two or three plain clothes policemen enter the embassy. We were expecting Assange to be brought out very soon after their arrival but text to the ops room revealed he had caused a bit of a commotion and had been screaming and bawling while edging towards the ambassador's office at which point he was forcibly restrained. Then with military precision, six police officers marched up to line each side of the entrance steps to form a protective corridor through which Assange was bundled out at about 10, 20 a.m. By this time Russia today had twigged something, was afoot and cut the live feed. So job done at last. And we take a commemorative photo of Team Pelican. It had taken many months of patient diplomatic negotiation and in the end it went off without a hitch. I do millions of interviews trying to keep the smirk off my face. The harsh treatment of a journalist for publishing accurate information exposing government officials has led to an outcry from sections of the public, the media and the medical community, and from elected members of parliaments around the world. In Assange's native Australia several members of parliament have spoken out. In October 2019, 11 Australian politicians from various parties rallied to form the Bring Assange Home parliamentary group. It consisted of two national MPs, two Labour MPs, and a number of Greens across benches. Since then politicians around the world have been gathering to voice bipartisan support for the imprisoned Julian Assange, notably in Germany, Switzerland, the European Parliament and in the UK. Parliamentary support is also strong across Latin America among the left. Joining us today to discuss Assange's persecution are Labour MP Julian Hill, Green Senator Peter Wish Wilson, and former Senator Scott Ludlam. We will also see recorded messages from independent MP Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen of the National Party. I'd like to open the questioning by throwing it out so any of you would like to answer it. What are the reactions that you get from other MPs or senators or anyone in government when you bring up Assange in the case? You've all been trying to argue for his case. What reactions do you get? I might start by answering that question. Peter Wish Wilson from the Greens. Myself and Andrew Wilkie were the two initial parliamentarians who set up the Friends of Bring Julian Assange group home. And I would say the answer to that question is reactions have varied over time. I'm pleased to report that when we first set the group up nearly 12 months ago, we got very limited support across political lines for the group. But things have changed. There's been a lot of momentum and a shift towards more members joining up, certainly within the government, the Liberal National Party. I've had nothing but the cold shoulder, I suppose, to use that term from government senators and members of parliament. I understand we do now have a member from the government that's joined the group, which is fantastic, a fellow Tasmanian actually, the member for Bass where I live in Launceston, Bridget Archer. So the Labor Party have certainly warmed to this over time and Julian who's on the call today was one of the first to join from the Labor Party and that was very welcome. And I think there's been a growing acceptance that this is a significant matter of public interest. Julian is an Australian citizen as well as a Walkley, which is an Australian award for journalism, a Walkley award winning journalist who has published facts. And I think the bigger issues at stake here, apart from the fact that he has rights as a citizen, that press freedoms are at threat. This is a very chilling precedent. He's starting to be taken more seriously by members of parliament. So we have seen a lot more activity, a lot more speeches, and I'm optimistic we'll get more people to join. Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. He's never been convicted of any crime, yet he's been locked up and confined for years now, facing extradition to the USA and an effective death sentence on trumped-up, politically motivated charges. Two months ago, a UK court found on humanitarian and health grounds that he should not be extradited to the USA. Yet still today, bail is withheld and Julian is locked up, isolated in a maximum security UK prison with murderers and rapists at risk of death from COVID-19 because of his conditions. His health continues to deteriorate. As the Labor leader has said clearly, this has gone on for long enough. The Prime Minister and his do-nothing Foreign Minister need to act now to bring Julian Assange home and prevent his extradition to the USA. His health and his life depend on it as the UK court found. If Assange is extradited to the US, he'll face extreme isolation for 175 years and charges carrying the death penalty can be laid the amenities on US soil. No national security defendant has ever succeeded in the Eastern District Court of Virginia. Assange would be buried alive in the US justice system. Ironically, treated worse than those responsible for America's war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, which he and WikiLeaks exposed. Should he even survive, Assange would circle the US justice system for years, decades, as lawyers, academics and judges argue, over whether cherished First Amendment rights even extended to him. But at the heart of this matter is a broken man, an Australian whose health is failing and who needs to come home. Now, for years now, the Morrison government has used weasel words to avoid responsibility, but the persecution of Julian Assange must end now. President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence, the person who provided the material revealing war crimes, yet Assange, the publisher, is still in jail. With the right diplomacy, the Biden administration could conclude this immediately. Now, the US is currently appealing the court's verdict, which could take months or years more. We must now ask our ally, our close ally and friend, to accept the British court's decision and just drop the prosecution. Friends and allies must speak frankly with one another when our shared values are at risk. The treatment of Assange corrupts our alliance with the US and makes a mockery of the UK's justice system and international law. The British court's recent decision was the right decision but for the wrong reasons, made on very narrow health and humanitarian grounds. The mental condition of Mr Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America. The judgment should be concerning for any person worried about human rights and the rule of law. Now, the Prime Minister's mouth the recent interest in the rule of law over the past week and if he seriously cares about the rule of law, he could show it by bringing Julian Assange home because political crimes should never form the basis of extradition requests and this case is inherently political, designed to mute whistleblowers and investigative journalists globally. As the defence said, it poses fundamental threats to the freedom of press throughout the world and is a flagrant denial of his right to freedom of expression. Now, I don't personally agree with everything Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has done but that is not and must never be the point. People should not be prosecuted for their political beliefs. People should not be prosecuted for engaging in journalistic activities. Publishing embarrassing classified footage of war crimes in Iraq is journalistic activity and behaviour. It is astonishing to me that a UK court failed to see through the brazenly political nature of this prosecution. On almost every point, the judge agreed with the US government's arguments. In this case, my view has now set a dangerous precedent for others around the world because under the court's logic, anyone anywhere in the world who publishes anything embarrassing to the US government could be extradited to the United States. Now, the judge's verdict has given the US what they sought. So this situation now needs a political resolution, not a legal one. The Australian government must speak up for our citizen. Not keep hiding behind their talking points about legal process and having his day in court. It doesn't matter if you agree with him. It doesn't matter if you like him. It doesn't matter if you dislike him. Julian Assange is an Australian with the same rights as you or me and he's entitled to the protection of his government. I call on the government to do the right thing and save this man. You get a range of views, that's the truth of it. And there's a lot of people that don't like Julian Assange. There's a lot of people that think he's a hero and there's a lot of people in the middle. But this is about a matter of principle and some really fundamental points of principle. It doesn't matter whether you like the guy. It doesn't matter whether you disagree with him. It doesn't matter whether you think he but mistreated his cat or any of the other nonsense and myths that have been spread and misinformation over many years now. The guy was engaging in journalistic activities. He exposed war crimes in Iraq. That's no different from happening in 1971 with the Pentagon Papers as a US audience would well remember and understand. And this is an issue which is gathering momentum and which is bringing together members of parliament and I know there's now support in the US Congress and in many other parliaments around the world. It is bringing together people from across the political spectrum. Be they arch conservatives who have a view of our institutions and media independence and the importance of press freedom in a democracy or what you might call ratbag lefties, probably a bit like Peter and myself, different parties and everyone in between. And it's welcome that we're starting to see more media attention on this, including in mainstream press in America and across Europe. But it's that point of principle is the thing we've got to stick to. The guy was engaging in journalistic activities. There's been a silly debate about, well, was he a journalist? Wasn't he a journalist? Was he in this club? That doesn't matter. The principle of protection to the press extends to any citizen, anyone engaging in this journalistic activities can make no mistake. This is an inherently political prosecution and the extradition is inherently political. It's about chilling the media across the world from reporting on war crimes and abuse of power and it will chill the ability of across the democratic world, if this case sticks, to hold power to account. It's incredibly important and I think the interest that you and others are showing is really welcome. We're not going to watch a video of an interview we did with George Christiansen, a member of parliament from the National Party. We did it earlier and we asked him an important question about a precedent that was sent when a Australian journalist was prosecuted for publishing classified information. Let's look at that now. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions stated that it was not in the public interest to prosecute a journalist for reporting on war crimes. That in the case of Dan Oaks, an ABC journalist. It seems to me that if the Australian federal police did drop the charges against the ABC journalist and he was doing something very similar to Julian Assange. He was reporting on war crimes in Afghanistan and using classified information. So how can we still be so indifferent to Julian and just let it happen to him? You've just outlined a clear argument that if Julian Assange ever comes back to Australia and there is an extradition case in Australia, which is possible, the exact reason legally why he should not be extradited. Director of Public Prosecutions, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, no less. That is a serious sort of a role where you make these deliberations based on facts of law and what's in the public interest. And that Director of Public Prosecutions speaks for the Commonwealth of Australia. That view would mean that if Britain was following the same sort of legal philosophy that the Australian Commonwealth follows, that you would not be extraditing that person. You would not be extraditing Julian Assange. Yeah. Joe Laurier and I were present in the extradition hearing the whole month of it. What we learned there are two things, very important things about the CIA intelligence agencies. The American friends, as they were called, is that UC Global were spying on Julian Assange in the embassy on his lawyers, doctors, and all visitors on behalf of the American friends. We also learned from an expert witness, Maureen Baird. She was somebody who had been responsible for administering SAMs, special administrative measures. And what was revealed was that the intelligence agencies and specifically the CIA also weighed in on whether a particular prisoner should get SAMs. So this is a stitch up, if ever, when they are gathering the evidence and spying on the defense, but also responsible in a large way if we're dealing out the punishment of being silenced for the rest of his life. The things that you've outlined there are just absolutely outrageous. I don't know how any court could extradite someone knowing that all of their personal legal communications had been spied upon by the side that wants to extradite him. That is a clear signal that there would not be a fair trial because there is this rule of law in the UK, a rule of law supposedly in the US, supposedly in the UK that those conversations are privileged not to be spied on, yet they were. So how on earth can anyone have a fair trial? Well, I have another question for Julian. And that is that on March 22, you accompanied Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen on a visit to the US Embassy in Canberra to speak with the charged affairs, Michael Goldman, and about Julian Assange. Can you tell us how that went even a hint of a response since you visited? Yeah, thank you. Look, we were pleased. The conveners of the group and myself as an opposition party member. So George Christensen, one of the conveners is a government party member known as a bit of a Maverick Arch conservative, if you like, you know, politics. I think in the United States context he'd certainly be from Texas. And I'm probably from Massachusetts. If you want to put it in that context, and Andrew Wilkie is the independent. We were pleased that the US Embassy, the Charger d'affaires agreed to meet with us. And look, to be fair, we got a good hearing. We had, but we said our bit. We got our arguments across. We come from different perspectives on the issue. But the key message, whatever you think are the points of principle, is that this has gone on long enough. This guy has been in effect incarcerated for over 10 years. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture found that he showed all the signs of prolonged psychological torture. And if you want to get, if you want to get real about it, I didn't like the UK judgment that the court found which you referred to in the introduction. I thought it was a terrible judgment. Frankly, the court, the court agreed with every one of the key substantive arguments which the United States put. The points of principle are dangerous, but in that sense the US has what it wants from this. They've got the precedent that anyone, anywhere in the world at any time that's accused of publishing material that the US government doesn't like, could be subject to these kind of charges and extradition orders. That will have a chilling effect on journalism. But what the UK court found, and this is the key point which we all tried to convey to the US government, you have what you want from the legal precedent, you can now respect the judgment and accept on the humanitarian arguments. And I know Joe Biden is a great humanitarian. He's been that all his career and all his life. He believes in human rights or professes that belief. You know, the US could actually respect the judgment of the court based on the health grounds that Julian Assange cannot be extradited because of his own fragile health. They could choose to actually accept the court's argument and still walk away thinking, well, we've got what we wanted from this. Ultimately, this is political. The prosecution was political. And we need a political solution, not a legal one. And that is, and that's the message we sent back. We call on the US government to drop the charges, to drop it, to stop it, and to say it rests here. It's gone on long enough. I like all of your opinion of what you heard of what Sir Alan Duncan wrote from a foreign secretary. To me, it's not surprising. What is surprising to me is that he wrote it all down and has published it. But what has your reactions got to the glee in which they experienced the arrest of Assange? Your reading of it was the first that I had heard of it, Joe. I found it absolutely chilling that it's a game to these people, given the principles that are at stake, given the lives that are at stake, that Julian and Pete have so adeptly set out. I found it absolutely chilling. I find it, unfortunately, not surprising that that's the cavalier attitude. And I don't think that those comments will age very well. I might add, look, it's just more evidence for me that powerful people, people of influence, decision-makers, hate Julian Assange with a very personal form of intensity, because he has exposed not just through the Iraq war logs and rules of engagement, which is part of the court case, well, big part of the court case, but through various WikiLeaks expos, these are vaccinations of some of the most powerful people in the world. In politics, it's hard to describe how unusual, I mean, politics is often a game, but this just feels deeply, deeply personal. And when you see one of the great empires of our, certainly of our time, if not in ministry, and all their resources, all their power being brought to bear on one man in his organization. Over a long period of time, this is a personal vendetta and I think it's, as Julian said, it's gone too far. I think, certainly Australians have a very innate sense of fairness and regardless of what they do think of Assange and whether they actually know much about WikiLeaks, they're not happy with the way he's been treated. They're not happy with this vendetta. They're not happy with their government's complicity in this and the parliamentary friends group that we're part of is unique because we all have very different views about Assange. Yet, they're strongly held views and I think the longer this drags on, Julian's dead right in his comments that the US have won the substantive arguments. If they do manage to succeed to get Julian to the US then this becomes a trial on press freedoms in the First Amendment. For the life of me, I can't see how the US don't understand the US administration wouldn't see how that's going to tar them with that negative politics brush. I'm just like a lot of people and especially Scott, who's been a friend of Julian's for many years and has been the most fierce advocate in the Australian Parliament in recent decades we want this to come to a close. We want this to be over and I suspect like David Hicks and Terry Hicks, his father in Australia that was in Guantanamo Bay nobody thought it was possible that we'd be able to get David out of Guantanamo Bay in the middle of the so-called war on terror. Yet a very strong grassroots groundswell of political campaign swept across our country because Australians just didn't feel he'd been dealt with fairly and he should have a trial. He had human rights. He was a citizen and needed to be protected and we succeeded in bringing him back to Australia and the kind of political campaign we will see continuing to build momentum in Australia for Julian Assange. Joe, I might just add a couple of comments to what Peter and Scott have said there. To my mind, I was shocked but not surprised in hearing that quote read out. I agree that's how power operates but not being surprised doesn't mean that any of us should be silent. There's a healthy tension in a functioning democracy between the media wanting to scrutinise power and hold it to account and expose the inner workings and goings on and at times the legitimate desires or needs of governments to maintain secrets. That is a tension that's the truth of it. Stephen Aftergood who writes for the Federation of American Scientists and does a thing called secrecy news which is an indispensable newsletter about what's happening in the field of classification and secrecy in general. So I read it regularly and it's very good. He hasn't had a clearance himself. He hasn't been inside the system himself. I don't think he or most people who haven't been inside can really fathom how corrupt that system actually is. And they think of the occasional hiding of mistakes, crimes, aggression, torture, things like that as aberrations of some kind that could be and should be eliminated by a better classification system that doesn't classify as much. People like Steve Aftergood and others in criticising the classification system will quote officials all of whom say there is over classification, too much is classified and sometimes they'll make what seem like dramatic estimates of the amount that doesn't any longer need classification. It might be they say as much as 30%, 30%, even 50% which looks pretty radical, half of what is classified no longer deserves classification. That's a very, very misleading estimate. In my trial, the man who had written a number of the classification regulations for the Department of Defense, William Florence, had testified before the House Operations Committee and then testified in my trial as to his estimate having just retired of the amount that deserved classification by the criteria of the classification system. Top secret opposes the threat of exceptionally grave damage to our security or our diplomatic relations, for example. Secret, less grave, but still serious and so forth. His estimate was that perhaps 5% of what was classified deserved classification at the time it was classified and that after two or three years, perhaps one half of 1%, in other words, one tenth of that, 5%. My experience would suggest that seems quite realistic. Some years ago before I was in Parliament, I actually read a couple of Julian's books and I don't personally agree with all of his philosophy. Although I do respect the fact that he's got the intellectual rigour to lay out a world view, some of which he can relate to, a lot of which I didn't agree with. But whether you agree with him or not, he's not the point. He's holding power to account and he's doing it in a way which mainstream, so-called mainstream journalists do. So why has he been treated differently? Because he embarrassed some very powerful people. That's the truth of it. I just want to pick up on one point that Peter made there, which is spot on. Let's imagine for a moment, let's imagine for a moment that they pursue this appeal and that the US Government is successful and that he's then extradited to the United States. That will be a terrible spectacle for Australia and Australia and the US have a very close alliance and we've got a great people-to-people relationship. As history showed with David Hicks, you never would have thought that public opinion in Australia could turn in favour of a so-called terrorist. But ultimately that sense of the Australian fair go that this guy's Australian and he should be treated fairly according to the Australian law and the Australian courts and not locked up in a military jail in the bowels of the Empire of our greatest and closest ally. That one out. The truth is, Julian faces an effective death sentence in America if he's extradited. He will be convicted. He will be convicted. No one has ever not been convicted in the Eastern District Court of Virginia. No one. He'll be locked up for 175 years at least and that's if he's not subject to charges with the death penalty. Australia doesn't have the death penalty. I know this is a difference between America and Australia but it's passionately and strongly held across most of Australia that you don't execute people or condemn them in that way. It'll impact on their relationship in an entirely unproductive way. It's unnecessary. You know, this could and should be stopped now. The final point I'll just make, Peter rightly mentioned the First Amendment's rights in a trial on press freedom. The assertion of the previous administration and much of the national security establishment in America is that First Amendment rights don't apply to non-citizens. So we're going to end up with this ridiculous argument for years about whether someone acting in a journalistic capacity in another country is or isn't eligible for the First Amendment protections. That again will complicate relations in an entirely unproductive way. The best thing for America to do now would be to drop this, take the precedent and move on. Julian mentioned the Biden administration earlier and it reminds me that given the fact that the Obama administration notably refused to move forward with the prosecution of Assange and then it was Trump's administration that moved forward with prosecuting him and pushing to have him evicted from the Ecuadorian embassy. What were your reactions to see Biden continue to take the same policy as the Trump administration in there continuing that appeal of the extradition decision? I can kick off that if you like. I feel actually like we shouldn't read too much into that because the United States was in that transition process and our understanding from the legal team in London is that would have been very, very unusual given that they were in transition. The incoming administration's attorney general hadn't yet been confirmed by the Senate that it was almost a pro former that most people close to the case were expecting that the outgoing officials would have just rolled the appeal forward. So the question that you're putting forward is more we're all waiting now for the word from the prosecutors as to whether they do intend to appeal or not. Then it's a question of whether the British courts will allow them to appeal and that for me opens something of a crack in the armor because we have these two break points. Firstly, the officials from the Trump administration that decided to pursue this prosecution, they're gone now and a lot of the officials in Biden's administration including the president himself were part of an administration that had six years to move this prosecution ahead and they decided not to. Because of what they called the New York Times problem that you can't really prosecute Julian Assange without opening up this entire First Amendment can of worms which eventually means you need to prosecute the editor of the New York Times or any of the other media partners that were working with Julian and with WikiLeaks. The officials are different. The Attorney General himself arguably has a good record on First Amendment cases in his various parts of his past career. That gives me a lot of hope. That and the fact that quite unexpectedly on health grounds the court in London refused the extradition order on the 4th of January on the grounds that the United States prison system kills people and it's a continuation of the document that he's been tortured in custody is that he simply wouldn't survive the extradition process much less decades in a U.S. prison whether it's Supermax or Sam's or any part of those institutions. That for me gives me a lot of hope. Those two factors in combination are why I think we need to redouble our efforts, raise our voices and knock on some of those doors again that we've been knocking on for the past decade because there are so many doors who may hear this message in a different way. You're hearing from free people today Australian politicians free people who understand politics. I think we've made it very clear today as we have in speeches and media articles that putting this into a political frame we think it's cut and dried black and white that the U.S. has I suppose from their point of view won a moral victory based on the judge's substantive arguments and that they've achieved their aim and they should walk politically and they should now walk away because things will only get worse for them from here and they, you know, they risk eroding their high ground that they've achieved so far. To us as politicians that's black and white. If this continues, if this persecution continues from here it will certainly in my mind and I think many others really make me question just who is running the show because anyone with a political mind would be I suppose making a similar judgment to what you've heard from us today. If it's the intelligence agencies themselves and I would include Australia's intelligence agencies as part of the Five Eyes, if they are actually behind this which is certainly what's been put to me over many years then I think that's a conclusion that would be very hard for me not to draw if the U.S. continue with this case but it's actually the intelligence agencies that are continuing to persecute and seek the extradition and prosecution of Julian Assange and I think that in itself will open up a whole new set of questions and things that need to be answered because ultimately it'll be a political campaign in Australia that we hope will successfully put pressure on our allies but you know there's there's certainly concern there that we don't know a whole lot about how our intelligence agencies operate even here in Australia very little parliamentary oversight and I think that's going to have to be the next thing we'll need to focus on if this extradition draw continues. What you're saying Peter is that we're looking at the elected politicians in the U.S. and Australia and Britain whether they have the courage to stand up to their own intelligence agencies and do what we're all saying here is the right thing to do or there's something that they hold over these elected politicians it's just a question to ponder. When you're talking about Biden yes he was part of the administration that decided they couldn't prosecute Assange because the First Amendment was there Trump then did do that in my view and in an article I published today on Consortium News I'm arguing that with that prosecution of Assange sweeping away the First Amendment conflict that the U.S. in fact does have an official secrets act. Britain had prosecuted journalists in 1971 the Daily Telegraph some journalists at Time Out magazine for publishing defense or classified information. Now the U.S. has done the same and it in effect has an official secrets act people like Dan Ellsberg have said the U.S. doesn't have one I'm arguing that now the U.S. does but when you look at Biden yes he may claim he's a humanitarian but he was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion and he's also was asked whether Assange was more like Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers or a high-tech terrorist Biden chose a latter said he was more like a high-tech terrorist and there's also one thing we have to factor and though it's not part of the indictment the 2016 leaks that hurt Hillary Clinton could influence Biden as well I wanted to get your guys' view on that too because it's definitely damaged to some extent we don't know the Democratic Party's chances in that election I think it's too much to say that Assange got Trump elected or so many other factors but I think that might be affecting Biden but my question is Biden being the recipient of a phone call from Scott Morrison what is preventing Morrison and the Australian government from asking the U.S. Biden to release Assange what does the U.S. hold over Australia does Morrison have any leverage at all with the U.S. Government and given the opinion polls in Australia where most people support Assange's release wouldn't that be to an electoral advantage wouldn't that be an advantage with voters for Morrison to do such a thing I mean look in simple terms I think the parliamentary group including the members of Scott Morrison's own government say he needs to step up and make that phone call call the U.S. President and say this has gone on for long enough drop the charges just stop it that's a common view I'm not going to speculate on many of the other matters you raised about other considerations that may or may not be on Biden's mind I think that's for pundits and those in the U.S. to understand there's always nature of politics in reality there's always a nature of you know bunch of stuff swirling around that might influence decisions but I think that the strongest points and the points we've made that this should be based on points of principle the First Amendment First Amendment problem which as you stated was the reported reason why the Obama Administration didn't pursue the prosecution whatever individuals be it President Biden or others may or may not think of Julian Assange that First Amendment problem is still there we now have the farcical situation you know let's compare one and two things Chelsea Manning the person who apparently provided the classified material was pardoned Julian Assange the person who published the material as Scott aptly said all the way up to the end of the New York Times if you want to trace that line is still being persecuted the person who supplied the classified material was pardoned the person who published it in the public interest was persecuted I think we need to stick to those points of principle and not get too distracted in terms of pursuing our objectives on all of the other political conjecture conspiracies some of them may be true I don't think that's actually going to help our cause and help Julian's cause What's holding Morrison back from making that call or other Australian politicians asking the US to do that I'd expect again now I'm doing what I said I wouldn't do a bit of conjecture I'd expect that there will be some institutional resistance within you know the establishment I expect that there's a very conservative bunch of people also within his own government probably the majority of them who don't like Assange and don't care about the issue and they have not focused on it enough to see points of principle when I gave the most recent speech in the house actually someone a government MP who you know we have different politics but I do respect and shall remain nameless texted me actually later that night said by the way I was watching and listening listen to your adjournment I haven't been persuaded but you made some very good points and I think I'm getting there there is a quiet set of conversations going on amongst government members and we've been told of some of those that people are sort of saying this actually is a problem it needs to be dealt with perhaps you know perhaps miracles will happen and Scott Morrison will actually start doing his bloody job and leading the country but you know we can't wait for that moment we got to keep speaking up and pushing ourselves I think that's right and if you're whatever we think might be going on behind the scenes I think one thing's fairly clear our Prime Minister in Australia is not going to make that phone call without significantly increased public pressure it's the only thing that he's likely to respond so if you're seeing this broadcast and you are in Australia then you've got to make the phone call first you've got to write the email you've got to get on social media you've got to talk to your friends and we have to push this Prime Minister to make that call because otherwise I don't think he will and if you happen to be in the United States and you're seeing this broadcast don't expect the Australian Government to step up we need you to step up and to pressure the Biden Administration because the Australian Government quite frankly is have a limit to being seven years they've done less than nothing so if you're seeing this broadcast from the United States we need you to get on phones too Peter do you want to weigh in on that question of why Morrison will make this call? Well look obviously politics being what it is there needs to be an incentive for him to do that he probably doesn't see a lot of upside in staging an intervention at this stage but saying that it is quite extraordinary that the Government has gone to considerable lengths to get other Australians back from other countries even other Australians facing extradition and there was very little political gain in them doing that I think the bigger issue here is that we have a close relationship with the US including a defence relationship we have the ANZAS Treaty that's been there since the Second World War we have very close intelligence ties with the US very close military ties I do personally believe that the resistance and I've seen the nervousness up close and personal with Senators and Ministers and Government members that I've talked to on this issue I do believe that's a significant factor in us not taking any action to help Julian Assange especially go beyond the diplomatic assistance that our Government keeps falling back on we're offering consular assistance which is really meaningless in the context that we need a political intervention we actually need to show some leadership at that very senior level in Government if we're going to get him back to Australia I understand that speaking to some of Julian's lawyers that the Trump Administration did seriously consider pardoning Assange and if a phone call had been made from the Australian Government at that time to request it very likely would have been granted because it would have given the ex-presidents some political cover with some Republican Conservatives who may have been looking at his impeachment further down the tracks but that wasn't forthcoming and yes I have a very strong view that I think it's our military and intelligence ties with the US that is the key part of this problem and to get over that we will need Australians to make it very clear to our Prime Minister that this is an issue going to a federal election Julian would know more about this in me but there is potential for by-elections in Australia in the next 12 months the Government's numbers in the House of Assembly or the US Congress equivalent it's very tight there in terms of their majority and given that George Christensen and Barnaby Joyce and others within the Government thanks to her very strong views on bringing Assange back to Australia I would hope that potentially there may even be an opportunity to do something on the floor in politics in terms of demanding Scott Morrison picks up the phone if he wants to keep governing in this country let's fantasize for a moment that Gough Whitlam is the Prime Minister now and he's faced with the Assange problem would he pick up that phone and threaten let's say to kick Pine Gap out of here or is the fact of what happened to Gough Whitlam hanging over the head of every subsequent Prime Minister including the present one if you want to take the Gough example I think it illustrates the point that I've been trying to make this is about a matter of principle and I would be very confident looking at Gough's incredible record and contribution to Australia that he would act on the basis of principle and that's the point that we're all making, conservative progressive somewhere in between this is about press freedom it's about protecting journalistic activities and in this case now even respecting the UK Court's judgement which is he cannot be extradited on health and humanitarian grounds and the matter must stop there if you want to take the Gough example he would act on principle unfortunately we did not have a Prime Minister and a leader now who will act on principle completely agree with what Scott and Peter have said it will rely on public pressure both in America in other democracies around the world and in Australia to try and shift that position but in the meantime we need to keep advocating the points of principle the only thing I would add is Julian Julian is Julian Hill is a man of principle and joined this Parliamentary Friends group very early and I have been very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese making public statements questioning why the US would continue with this extradition given the Court's judgement especially about the health and mental health implications for an Australian citizen and I understand the Shadow Attorney General made public comments and I do believe that there is a broader opposition now in politics in Australia calling for this process to be for the US to walk away from this process so I'm optimistic that that will continue into the next federal election and I think that's significant I'll just add a comment on that you're right Peter I've been not thinking about domestic politics only in this discussion and that's a lovely thing for all of us to actually talk about important matters of principle but we are the alternative government in our democratic system of the country we passed a motion unanimously at our every three years we have a national conference it's public, it's messy, it's on the web this year and we passed a motion last week at the Triennial National Conference unanimously saying this has gone on for long enough so as the alternative government of the country Labor has made our position clear now whatever you think of the matters of principle the prosecution needs to be dropped policy position as the leader of the opposition the alternative prime minister is there a real fear amongst Australian leaders that the US and Britain could team up again to remove you from office like happened in the 1970s if you cross Washington maybe not a sound wouldn't be enough but or is that not true because I've heard this not something I'm worried about or losing sleep over we've got a good and robust relationship I think with the US and all their major allies we can speak truth as friends the US ambassador we're acting ambassador welcomed us in we had a chat we were heard I feel confident in that I've spent a lot of time in the United States officially and as a tourist you know I think the relationship is strong enough to withstand these kind of discussions I'm not concerned and indeed on the contrary I think because we have a very close and you know longstanding relationship with the US we should as friends we should be able to have very robust discussions on this particular point and others I think Trump was certainly very transactional president and I wondered you know what kind of discussions had taken place in terms of but no I don't think it's anything any of us are concerned about and certainly with with tensions that we have and the US government has with China at the moment I think our relationship with the US and our region is even more important especially from a US perspective so I'm not concerned at all I just I just wish that our government would stand up for an Australian citizen and do what they've done for other Australians around the world that have needed political intervention at the highest levels it is about the government standing up for an Australian citizen and points of principle if you have time for one last question I just wanted to return to something Scott mentioned and that was the importance of public pressure in support of Assange and we know that that kind of pressure is greatly impacted by media coverage in the United States we've seen consistently dishonest reporting regarding the Assange case peppered sometimes with opinion pieces expressing hesitance on his prosecution since he was imprisoned in Belmarsh I'd just like any of your thoughts on how the Assange story has been represented by the Australian media since he was expelled and has it improved since you've begun your efforts I think picking up on something that Peter said is we are getting a bit of momentum now and certainly in the last two years I think there's been a much more favorable and positive reporting of the matter more balanced and that's partly driven by the constant advocacy that many of us are doing the fact it is across the political spectrum that is really important so I think things are actually improving and there's some momentum gathering I would agree with that in terms of the tone of the coverage but also the volume when when he was removed forcibly from the embassy when he has court appearances it leads global news bulletins in every time zone on the planet there's that recognition of the gravity of the precedent that this sets so I think that's there and I also think the tone has improved greatly his union the media entertainment and arts alliance I think the equivalent in the United States is Newsguild have been very strong and very vocal advocates and I think that is reflected in the coverage that we're seeing in Australia we could always do with more, we could always do with more front pages but I think the gravity of the importance of the case is reflected and it's certainly easier to get the word out than it was even, you know, four or five years ago I would also throw my support behind both those comments I know when Paul Daly from The Guardian in Australia wrote a piece on my friend Dean Yates the ex-royters Baghdad bureau chief who was responsible for the journalist killed in what was exposed in collateral murder that was the most viewed Guardian piece online for two weeks around the world and I think, you know of course we could see more of the media here over many years has kind of been cut to the bone there's not as many investigative journalists as there used to be they're very focused on issues of the day but I've definitely sensed a shift in momentum and yeah, I think we've also seen a lot of influences and celebrities advocating for a side, especially around the potential for him to be pardoned late last year earlier this year and I sense that we'll see a lot more of that especially going into a federal election if the US don't walk away from this in the next few weeks I'd like to throw one out again to everyone including Julian before he goes back to the former foreign secretary in his diary his counterpart, Maurice Payne the foreign minister of Australia has expressed trust in due process for Assange but I wonder how that squares with the accounts that we read to a refollement of forcibly removing some from asylum in this plot what it seems to be certainly an agreement between the UK foreign minister and the Ecuadorian president at the time, how does that square with Maurice Payne saying she believes that there is due process for Assange it's absolutely worth people who are interested in that point do a bit of Googling, have a bit of a look around and listen to the legal arguments that his legal team have picked that apart comprehensively and shown in numerous ways how he has been denied due process and we should not be confident that he's been afforded a fair and reasonable process even in the legal system and then there's those issues you rightly raised about what happened before he was evicted from asylum but fundamentally as we keep saying this is a political matter and the problem with the foreign minister of Australia getting up and saying those talking points and the prime minister reading at his media message he keeps saying he's got to face the music he's got to front up they're just media spin they're just stuff that politicians say to the media to make an issue go away when they don't want to talk about the substance of the matter this is inherently political this is often by politics these prosecutions need or should need to be consented to and you should not extradite people this is a well understood convention within extradition law you don't extradite people to face political crimes and this argument this supposed crime publishing material and journalistic activities is a political crime and it should not be the subject of an extradition process and it is to say that stuff but they're just talking points to avoid actually saying anything or engaging with the principle thank you for that Julian and by the way we played your firebrand speech at the beginning of this that was quite an extraordinary thing and I think take probably some courage to stand up in that venue in parliament and lay it out on the line like that yeah well you know you're not always here to be popular though you could do that some days you're here to stand up for what's right you know something a bit of advice I got when I was first elected and I was seeking advice from some bunch of wise people and I asked Tony Burke who's currently has a prominent role on our side of politics and said you know what advice you got he said never underestimate the impact that something thoughtful you say in the house in the chamber can have often in ways you can't predict he said it also works the other way if you say something really silly that can have an impact too but words matter in our democracy I believe the parliament matters in your place the congress matters it's a pity that it's held in such low regard there's a whole lot of reasons for that but in a democracy having a place where elected representatives can speak freely and speak on points of principle really matters and we should value that all right well I want to thank all of you Julian Hill Scott Ludlam Peter Wishwilston for joining us today to discuss the situation of Julian Sange and what members of parliament in Australia need to do about that so thank you again for joining us thank you very much enjoy the wine that's actually Coke Zero wine glass I don't work and drink at the same time thank you again let's close Elizabeth me asking you this is the second anniversary today of that horrible scene did you see it live what was your reaction then and how do you feel about it now two years later I was watching live I was watching roughly when he was brought out and I was thoroughly sickened I was horrified by the state that Julian was in I was disgusted by the way in which he was being manhandled and carried to the waiting bus that took him to or the van that took him to Belmarsh I think I was you know it was surreal it was something that people who had been following the case expected because there were kind of suggestions that this was coming imminently to the actual event the journalist Cassandra Fairbanks covered the plainclothes policemen undercover intelligence type figures who were in these cars etc etc so we knew that this type of thing was coming so although it was not a surprise it was nonetheless extremely sickening and I am on one level I am glad that Assange and his lawyers won the extradition case and I'm surprised that that was the outcome despite how bad a judgment was overall I'm glad that he won I'm surprised that he won and I'm really saddened and angered that Julian is still in Belmarsh despite having won that extradition case yeah I thought of Cassandra exactly the same moment you did when she actually had the courage to go up to the one of those cars and asked them if they were on to the effect of whether they were undercover cops were they there to arrest Assange and it did come and we did expect it but it was still incredibly shocking unless by coincidence I was in Alexandria Virginia then and Kathy Volgum was in Sydney and we were speaking on the phone watching this together and it was it's still kind of hard to believe and how chilling that was and I thought at that moment that you know I don't want to be too grandiose here but that our western civilization changed in that very moment that they arrested a journalist under the Espionage Act which had never happened before other journalists had only been prosecuted on the Espionage Act for calling for an end to the draft for interfering with the military draft to that extent but never for publishing defencimation and there were several opportunities where they tried to do it FDR tried to prosecute Chicago Tribune reporters during World War II for some intelligence that they revealed about the battle of Midway and then of course there was the Pentagon Papers case where Nixon handled a grand jury to try to prosecute the New York Times reporters and Boston Globe reporters who had published depending on papers and that collapsed and the Obama Administration as we discussed decided not to go ahead with it because they saw the First Amendment there but the Trump Administration broke through that red line and it was even though we knew that there was this indictment remember it hadn't been revealed yet trying to say that it didn't exist the US government when part of it had leaked inadvertently and everybody knew about the case knew that there was this indictment in Virginia but it hadn't been revealed when we saw him come out of that embassy we know all bets were off that they had him and they'd crossed that red line right there and we saw him when his head emerged from the door as they pulled him out parallel to the ground and carried him out of that embassy you couldn't believe this could actually happen if you had any remaining feelings that the United States and Britain were democratic countries committed to those principles and then again you can go right up to the line but not cross it and that line was crossed and yes, Elizabeth he's still in Belmarsh as we speak which is extraordinary after winning his case and being discharged by Vanessa Baratun with that we will say goodbye to our audience we thank again to our politicians in Australia for joining us to discuss Julian Assange here on the second anniversary of his arrest from the Ecuador Embassy in London so for Elizabeth Faust to cat the Vogan until next time, good night good night