 It's clear that Julian, in fact, precisely what I've been contemplating for the last few months is the international definition of a hostage. You'll see on live season 5, episode 4, I'm Joe Laurier, editor-in-chief of Consortium News. We interviewed Julian Assange's father, John Shipton, over two days this week on a range of news, including the visit of Australia's ambassador in Britain to Belmarsh prison to see Shipton's imprisoned son, a letter from members of Congress of the U.S. Attorney General demanding charges be dropped against Assange, and a row in Australia's parliament over whether the prime minister spoke to President Joe Biden about the case. We go first to Elizabeth Voss and Kathy Vogan, who spoke to Assange's father on Wednesday. Tonight we speak with John Shipton, the father of imprisoned journalist Julian Assange. John is currently on tour in the United States with the release of the film Ithaca, which gives a rare glimpse into the life of Julian Assange's family and closest supporters. International momentum appears to be building in support of Assange, with Michigan representative Rashida Tlaib calling the Department of Justice to drop charges against Julian. In the United Kingdom, the new Australian High Commissioner in London, Stephen Smith, was recently able to visit Julian in Belmarsh where Julian remains imprisoned. Soon afterwards, reporters without borders representatives were turned away from their visit with Assange, which had been pre-planned and pre-approved, and the refusal to allow them to visit Julian sparked much uproar. John, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Thank you. The first thing I wanted to ask you about was your commentary on the new Australian High Commissioner in London, Stephen Smith, and his visit to Julian in Belmarsh. Have you heard anything about how that went? No, we're in St. Louis in the United States, so I know as much as you do. But I would like to say that the visit of the High Commissioner to Julian Assange changes things all together, lifts the profile of Julian's case, and is much appreciated by his family and supporters. What are the outcomes or impacts that we can hope for? What's the biggest impact you think it might have? Oh, I guess the reverberations will make themselves known in the next few days as people in power make contribution or commentators like yourself who have access to parliamentarians are able to make comments. So I think that those things are really important. But as for me to speculate, I would say that this is the beginning of the end of Julian's incarceration. And to go along with this, I would say very good news about this visit. We've also heard about this letter drafted by Rashida Tlaib to Merrick Garland. I wanted to hear your comments on that as well. Oh, that's excellent that the squad or the progressive caucus, if you like, and the Democratic Party have a dear colleagues letter that's going to be circulated. Also, there's a letter to Merrick Garland signed by about a quarter of the Australian parliament. And that equally as important, the contributions of parliamentarians around the world, the Council of Europe, every European theater parliament, with the exception of Sweden, I think, has even Luxembourg has an Assange Cross Party group. One of the Greek parliament of 300 members has 90 odd in the Assange group. So the Australians are forging a path here. We started four years ago with two people, two notable parliamentarians. And who usually don't give people's names, but Peter Wishwilson and Andrew Wookiee. And an interesting phenomenon has come about that others might want to embrace is that if you have, for example, a peace movement, the Assange campaign is a really good model to follow. So you go on the road and you take the information to people, to small towns or larger towns. And you accompany it with a film of some sort or other outlining what you consider very important and take that into parliament and in its sovereign majesty, the parliament will instruct the executive of the concerns of the people. It's a renewal of the foundational elements of parliamentary representation of Australia. Is there any other news on the Australian front of the Assange campaign right now that we should know about? No, you know, I've been in the United States for weeks now. We have 59 venues across the United States with the film each having a Q&A. So, you know, we've sort of been more than busy. And at the end of our sojourn in the United States, we'll go down to Mexico City. And again, I think speak to Andreas Lopez Obrador about Julian's circumstance. I just note for you that Lula de Silva, who's the president of Brazil, has made his support to Julian known. And he knows in uncertain terms the president of Argentina, the president of Chile, the president of Colombia, and the president of Bolivia. All made there a support of Julian public. And I think some of them, I'm not sure how many, have signed a letter to him, to President Biden, outlining their concerns over the collapse of free speech that Julian's persecution represents. That's brilliant news. And I'm glad you brought up your film because I wanted to ask you about the reception it's getting in the United States now that it's being released there. Well, you know, as always, because we see the United States from the outside, well, we have this impression of a general sort of bogeyman and bully, really. When you come into the United States as an Australian with the film and Julian circumstances, where more than warmly received, you know, we couldn't move in the United States without support financially from people within the United States, spiritually, emotionally and politically. We would be done for, we'd be like standing on a corner, the madman saying the world ends now, repent your sins. But our circumstances are different and we avoid along in a river of support here. I'm so glad to hear that. So also, can you comment for us on the recent attempt by reporters without borders to see Julian at Belmarsh and the fact that they were turned away from that visit that they had prepared and I believe was all set to go and they were the door. Oh, you know, the abuse of process and irregularities, which characterised Julian's current incarceration and his treatment over a period of 14 years now have been outlined by the United Nations Rapporteur on torture and unusual punishment in a 26 page document, which he submitted to the United Nations General Assembly and was accepted. And he also submitted to the United Kingdom and to the Swedish government. I would comment that both of those countries were instrumental in the formation of the Rapporteurs and the United Nations. However, they ignored, in the case of the United Kingdom, used bureaucratic means to what we say, slow down or make more difficult the Rapporteurs putting together of his report. However, the report does say that Julian is a victim of torture and mobbing and scurrilous slander over a period of seven and a half years, which amounts to psychological torture. So those two elements we take as insights into the treatment of Julian over these years. I expect that that will change entirely now, that a personage as important as the High Commissioner to the Court of St. James, Stephen Smith from Australia. I think that that is tremendous and substantial. Absolutely. And I also wanted to circle back briefly to the proposed changes to the Espionage Act that Rashid Tlaib has proposed. I'd like to get your comments on that if you had time to look at it. I haven't, but there was one previous one put up by Thomas Massey. And somebody from the Democrat side to reform the Espionage Act, which would have seen the charges against Julian drop straight away. Now, what happened was that COVID came and the Congress was unable to meet. However, both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress are reconsidering changes in the reform of the Espionage Act to make it so that it could be no longer used to pursue a publisher, particularly in the circumstances of Julian Assange, who is not an American citizen, who was in Iceland at the time. And so you have the circumstance where an extra territorial application of an American legal instrument is applied to an Australian working in the United Kingdom. It's all very odd and ought not to have been seen the light of day, in my view. Absolutely. Yeah. Cathy, if you'd like to jump in and ask a question, please do. Yes. Hello, John. You mentioned Peter Wish Wilson, who before Alba went off to San Diego specifically requested that he inform the Australian people after his return, whether he had asked that question to President Biden about getting Julian released. Now, David Shoebridge, a few days ago, there was a real kerfuffle involving Peter Wish Wilson, but he didn't really get to speak. But David Shoebridge, Senator David Shoebridge was pushing this point and trying to pin down Penny Wong, who was representing the Prime Minister at the time, and just get a simple answer to that question if POTUS had been approached about dropping the charges, specifically and Julian's release. Please answer the question. Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The Prime Minister has made his views clear about this matter, having been dragged on too long. But I again would make this point. I would make this point that whilst we are doing what we can between government and government, there are limits until Mr. Assange has concluded the legal processes. Now, Wong was stonewalling him the whole time and didn't say more than it's gone on too long. We want this matter to be quickly brought to a close. Has it been explained to you, John, whether bringing it to a close means in the UK or in the United States? Oh, well, there's no way we would allow Julian to be removed to the United States. That would be the death of Julian and I am convinced that the Australian government is aware and understands that. Yes, so that just won't happen. Well, Wong just kept saying that it was impossible for governments to do anything while legal processes were still afoot. But we wonder if she considers that they will be concluded if it goes back to the Home Secretary again. And that would be probably a terrible shame because Julian would not get to have his say in a cross appeal. So if they refused everything, that would make it end quickly. Refused every point of a high court appeal and sent it back to the Home Secretary. Is that the end of a judicial process? One could argue that it is because it's back to being a political matter if it's with the Home Secretary. What do you think about that? Is there a good idea to push at that stage so that Wong doesn't say, well, it has to finish in the United States? There's a lot in what you say. But my answer is as follows, that since the 30th of October, the high court judges have the papers upon which to make a decision as to whether an appeal is to be allowed. If he decides that an appeal can't go ahead, the defense can appeal again on the papers and that will go before two high court judges. Should those judges decide that there's no appeal possible, then it will go before the European Court of Human Rights. That's the process as to Foreign Minister Wong's understanding that there's no possibility of interfering in a legal case while it's in process. Of course, we understand that and we don't ask for any interference. What we ask for are representations made to the United Kingdom and to the United States as we understand clearly because it's an espionage case that is political and the legal matter is a veil over a political persecution. So we only ask for the most sensible thing. What we ask for is sensible and possible that representations be made. That's all. Not interfere with the judicial process because we believe the judicial process is clearly a veil over political persecution and that is evident in as much as that the two matters that I can eliminate. One, there is not allowed in the treaty, the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom to have a political extradition. It's specifically forbidden and that the charges are extraterritorial. Espionage indicates that they again are political and that it's extraterritorial means further that they are political. So there's three circumstances illuminating for us that it's a political persecution veiled by or facilitated by a judicial kidnapping if you like. Would I just ask you if you know John, would it be the same two judges, Holly Roy and Vernette? No? No, it'd be two different. I don't know. I don't know the judge who's looking at the papers at the moment, nor is it possible to know that if that judge refused, the hearing could be held. If he refused, which judges would view it after that? It's not possible to know. I spoke to Craig Murray about that and of the 16 points, the 12 that are about the extradition hearing and four that are about the Home Secretary's decision to extradite. Craig seemed to think that they couldn't possibly refuse every point because they pertain, some of these points pertain to absolute fundamentals in British law. Do you think that there's a chance that they could get around damaging British law that much by just to punish your son? You know, it's a bit awkward for me to give severe stick to the British judiciary, the English judiciary, United Kingdom judiciary and also ask them to look with a fair face upon Julian Assange. So it's, you know, I don't want to say, you know, any severe criticism. However, there's plenty of others who will do that. But what I can say is that the circumstances, the current circumstances where the Australian government is the only government withstanding in the Assange matter as Julian is a citizen and the Australian government through the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the High Commissioner, three of the highest posts in the Australian government have made their feelings known that they want this matter to end and they want Julian to return home. Yeah, they've made very clear they want the prosecution to end most recently. So how does that, how is that done apart from dropping the charges? Do you think? They, you know, are all men and women of considerable experience and knowledge in law and in diplomacy, which I don't have either. So I can't speculate as to how they go about these things. But diplomacy requires, you know, deep skill and understanding of where things lay and how to go about making them work in a particular direction. Leave that to them. All we do is support whatever moves the government makes to bring about Julian's freedom and also to generate support for Julian or crystallise support for Julian within the communities of the West. So I might say that, you know, all the parliaments have Assange cross party groups and the phenomenon is global and the problem is global. Thanks. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Back to you, Elizabeth. Yeah. No, thank you so much for your time, John. I think that's all that we have for now. I'm so glad to hear that support is really rallying behind you all in the United States. I was an Australian who lives here in the US as well. I understand how welcoming the American actual people can be despite the American acts in the world. Yeah. Yeah, they're very warm. So look, thanks, Elizabeth. Thanks, Cathy. I'm just going to go and have a whiskey now. It's been a day that just won't end. I'm having a grand kiss. Have a great one. Thank you. Bye. We continued our conversation with John Shipton on the following day. John, you said earlier in this interview that you feel this is the beginning of the end of the ordeal for your son. And I think you were referring to the High Commissioner's visit on Tuesday. You said it was tremendous and substantial. Now, I don't think I've ever heard you be so optimistic before. I was wondering why you do feel that way now. Well, a little bit more carefully considered, you know, it is substantial when the High Commissioner visits Julian, the representative of the Australian government visits Julian in jail. It hasn't happened in the entire 13 years, although they've had many opportunities and many different High Commissioners and four different governments and five different prime ministers. In that regard, the showing concern to the United Kingdom and to the United States by the High Commissioner visiting Julian in jail is significant diplomatically. That's what I would conclude myself. And he went there after you requested him to go, is that correct? I did make such a request of the High Commissioner and I understand that he of his own volition decided to visit Julian and then was encouraged thereby the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese. Yeah, that is quite interesting when I found that out that Albanese asked him or encouraged him to go. Did you have a conversation with Smith? Was it encouraging or was it just written communication? No, everything we did was by facsimile or email. I haven't spoken to Stephen or the High Commissioner, his Excellency. I would like to. He seems to be, his star has risen in my firmament. I can imagine. Well, I mean, compared to the previous High Commissioner who wore cuff links that bore the logo of the Central Intelligence Agency, this would seem to indicate a slight change at least in the evidence view of your case. Now, Albanese said, yeah, he encouraged him to go. I think with George Brandis wearing the CIA cuff links, it's just a loud attention seeking statement. I don't think the CIA would want much to do with George. They probably did have a little bit more to do with the previous High Commissioner, Alexander Downer, his attachment to an attraction to what you call alphabet agencies. It's like renowned, and also a man formidable, an enemy of the Julians and colorful in his directives of oil companies or gas companies that he negotiated agreements with the Timorese government. He didn't need to wear the cuff links then, obviously, to make a show. Now, Albanese said that he's raised the case with U.S. officials at appropriate level and that he would do so going forward. He meets U.S. officials. What do you make of appropriate level? Nothing really. I don't have any indication of what appropriate level means. I would hope that appropriate level means that somebody who can make a decision and that the Prime Minister has put forth the position of the Australian people, the Australian government, the Australian parliament, and many other parliamentarians and presidents around the world that this is not doing the United States any good whatsoever and show considerable concern to the damage it's done to the Australian government's reputation. The Department of Foreign Affairs trades reputation, the scandal that's embraced the Swedish prosecuting authority, the scandal and disgrace that the Crown Prosecuting Service has burdened itself with, and the scandal and disgrace that the Department of Justice National Security section has burdened itself with. So all of those considerations would give considerable authority to any utterance that the Prime Minister wanted to make to appropriate levels. That was again the phrase he used when he was asked again point blank whether he raised Julian's case with Biden in San Diego and he said he raised these issues at an appropriate level. So he wouldn't answer that directly. Unfortunately, we still don't know whether he did raise it in San Diego or not. Now, David Shubridge, the senator who confronted Penny Wong, the Foreign Minister in the parliament last Thursday, he tweeted about the High Commissioner's visit to Belmarsh. He said he's going, Smith is going basically as a welfare check and only after a global campaign that has shamed the Australian government for its inaction. Is he being too harsh, do you think? No. David Shubridge is a particularly steady hand and a good parliamentary representative and he doesn't approach these matters which are sort of vital interest to Australia with a light hand. He's very firm and I use the word fearless to describe his demeanour in parliament. It is 13 years. There has been a report from the United Nations Rapporteur on torture stating that we're watching a slow motion death before our eyes and Julian was tortured. The United Nations working group on arbitrary detention made two declarations that Julian was arbitrarily detained. It should be three. The last was in February 2018. I mean, I can go on. The list would unfold before the eyes of the scroll and you could make a book that, for example, 27 of the largest civic bodies in the United States, UCLA, the Human Rights Watch, all of them, 27 of them, wrote to the Biden administration asking for Julian to be freed. The Council of Europe have made two declarations, the last one very firmly. The Austrian government, anyway, the list as you know, is comprehensive and global so that the response of Stephen Smith you could say was good as a government overdue. Obviously, people in the Biden administration and in Canberra, they were aware of a long list you just made of the pressure that's been building and including the event in the parliament on Thursday with Wong. I wonder if there's a slight or subtle change coming here from the Albanese government. It seems with the visit by the High Commissioner with these more forthcoming statements from Albanese that he seems to be getting the message that politically may not be a good idea for him to ignore this case anymore, at least at home. Well, I think you know, I don't know how far to go with this, but I think it serves two purposes. One is that the Albanese government, in particular the Prime Minister has burdened himself with a deal over the August submarines as $360 billion which horrifies every Australian that means man, woman and child is up for a $1.4 million each. So that attending to Julian Assange in such a newsworthy fashion takes the attention elsewhere. Now, that would be the cynical view. My view is that it's overdue and that it's a result of the movement within the Australian parliament. 25% of the parliament are in the Assange group. The Australian people, 88% of the Australian people want Julian returned home and the Australian government now looks after every major South American government. The heads of those governments, Lula de Silva, Obrador in Mexico, Fernandez in Argentina, Burleque in Chile, Petro in Colombia, they make Australia look deficient in its attention to the needs of its citizens that have been in particular Julian Assange that have been viciously attacked or maliciously attacked by the United Kingdom, the Swedish prosecuting authority and the United States Department of Justice. Quite deficient, I would say. In fact, I would go even further. I would say that their deficiency can only be concluded that it is complicit. One of the core arguments against the submarine deal is that it undermines Australia's sovereignty. We've had two former prime ministers, Paul Keating and even Malcolm Turnbull, said so. And the Julian Assange case is also a question of Australian sovereignty. And I wonder if that message also got through the Albanese. And as you say, he's maybe trying to shore up the idea that he cares about Australian sovereignty vis-à-vis the U.S. And that he might be using this case, your case, to show that he has some backbone when it comes to dealing with the Americans. I wonder what helps, anyway. Look, I got no argument with that. But also, as a government, they must now accommodate and renew the relationship with India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Laos, Burma, all of those, the Philippines as well, all of those nations. Oh, and New Zealand, let's not leave New Zealand now, would be placed in awkward positions, particularly the larger nations like China and India. They will now have to spend money and resources equilating, if there's such a word, the Australian armory of submarines, which are Virginia-class and they carry 20 cruise missiles, which can be nuclear-tipped. So they have to do something about that. You know, geopolitically for the area that Australia's in, I would think that our neighbours would hope that in the near future they can assist Australia in having a vigorous independence. Like New Zealand has, for example, where they won't allow any nuclear ships into their coasts and we don't hear much news about New Zealand. It's a peaceful country. I don't know why maybe you could help me understand why Australia feels this need to play with the big boys, with the Americans and take part in Vietnam and then Iraq and then Afghanistan. And now with this submarine deal, why can't Australia be more like New Zealand, basically, and pursue that independent course? What is it about their need to be a part of first the British and now the American empires? We have only 26 million people were established as a convict state. We only have one free-settled estate, that's South Australia. And that is a consequence worked its way through the 200 odd years that we've existed. Also, we have a continent to look after, which is extremely wealthy, whereas New Zealand just has two small islands where our commodities in this commodity epoch, where commodities now rule the concerns of the geopolitical world. Australia's value with only 26 million people to look after has developed a outlook in the National Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which attaches itself to protectors. That's the circumstance. It's embittering for me, as an Australian, who would like to see a really vigorous diplomatic core making arrangements with all of our neighbors to balance the forces and also to secure our position, as Keating said, within Asia. But it is really not my concern. I rattle on about it. Forgive me, Joe. But the principal concern is that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has made a strong statement to the Australian people and to the United Kingdom, the United States, that with the vision of Stephen Smith, that it's principal concern to end this persecution of Julian Assar. A principal concern of the Australian government and the Australian people is to end this persecution. It's 14 years now and it's just a scandal. It's burdened Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the United States, a global problem that they've brought upon themselves. Some members of the world... They've got no excuses, actually, Joe. They've got no excuses at all for what they've done to Assange and what they've done to their reputations in the world. There are some members of the US Congress that would agree with that and have the same concerns, as we discussed earlier in the interview. My colleagues with Kathy and Elizabeth Halib, the congresswoman, has written this letter and she's getting signatures. It goes to Margaret Garland, the attorney general of the US. That's where the decision will have to be made, whether to continue with the charges or not. It was an excellent letter, I thought. It really lays out the case. Well, they've done their research today. There was no question about that. It seems now that Garland, the attorney general, is faced with a really major decision either to do the right thing or to do the politically safe thing. Maybe a major decision in his career, really. I just curious, what would be the cost to the Biden administration, to Biden personally and to Garland personally? What would they suffer if the charges are not dropped? Well, if Julian is brought to the United States on an extradition under the Espionage Act of 1917, the scandal that will fall upon that administration, one scandal after the other, I think it'll be the end of them, really, with the capacity for the Biden administration for institution of policy is very weak. Of course, everything depends on the authority that a president carries with him because they don't use the police and the army to enforce policy. They use the stature of the presidency. Well, you can see for yourself whether the stature of the presidency is at the present and only getting worse as the Ukraine thing goes really bad, as everybody in the world, 85% of the world turn away from the United States and you just saw now Brazil, which is a really, here's a prediction for you. Brazil has engaged with China in currency swaps and also Dilma Rousseff has been appointed head of BRICS Bank and has now moved to Shanghai and I'm going to punt on the prediction that Brazil will be presented as a new member of the United Nations Security Council pretty soon. Oh, well, I covered the UN for 25 years at headquarters in New York and that discussion of expanding, the council's been going on almost all that time, but you might be right about that. You're absolutely correct at the rest of it. Joe, it may not be necessary to expand as it may only be necessary for one of the irrelevant members to withdraw and make a place for Brazil and India. Do you want to nominate one of the relevant countries that would do that? Sorry. I don't think you would. The problem is Brazil wants a seat and then Argentina wants that South American seat and Nigeria wants the African seat and then Egypt says or South Africa says they want that seat and so on and that's one of the problems why the council's not, but it certainly should be. This is still the configuration of 1945 and why does Britain and France both have a seat when maybe there's a European seat. They'll never give it up. Britain tenaciously holds on to that seat because it's lost so much of its relevance and that is an important position of power for Britain I think and France as well. But you're right, the 85% of the world is not agreeing with the sanctions against Russia. They are turning against the US before our eyes. A new world is being created with new financial, commercial and other deals and yes, they're going to trade in other currencies now, not the US dollar. I wonder how many people in the US are starting to understand what's happening to America's position in the world. I think there are certain people in the foreign policy establishment writing in foreign policy magazine. They're starting to say things like this, but the political leadership at that level, they don't seem to get it. They seem to believe their own rhetoric about the America's role in the world of being the number one power that has to dictate to everyone else and that's going to die a slow death if it does, but there's definitely a change in this world and the Ukraine war has spurred that on, that multilateralism that was happening anyway, but it has accelerated extraordinarily. Joe, you know you can just cause their knees to knock together by the United Nations General Assembly considering seriously to move the headquarters to Dhaka where everybody lives and then also considering moving for example the human rights out of Geneva down to Cairo where everybody else lives. Just the consideration of those elements would be enough to cause them to run around in circles and slapping their sides with worry. Just simply the considerations. It's the similar thing to Stephen Smith visiting Julian. The High Commissioner goes and visits. He just says, hello, how are you going? We'll build up trust here, but everybody realises that this is substantial symbolism or signal to the other people, to the other nations involved in Julian's incarceration. Similarly, if somebody substantial in the General Assembly got a group together and said, well, you know, it's done its time in New York. We're going to Dhaka. Well, they'd straighten up and fly right pretty quick. Back to whether Biden can drop the charges or not. It appears to me that the two main obstacles for him are his own party, the Democratic National Committee and the CIA. The DNC because they're still angry wrongly at Julian for what they think was why the United States got Trump as president. They still blame WikiLeaks and they still think he had something to do with Russia that won't go away. The CIA, because I think they're still fuming about Vault 7 even after Pompeo left. I wonder if you agree, would it take Biden standing up to his own party and the CIA to be able to do the right thing here? As I understand the decision to pursue the charges came from the presidential office under Trump. And similarly, the White House can remove the charges. Biden has enough skill. He's a monster in being able to manipulate the institutions of state. He's had 50 years of practice. He knows how to work those levers. So he can divert people's attention to something and have a call committee meeting in Congress to discuss the directions that he wants to take the 1917 Espionage Act and how further to protect the First Amendment which would take everybody's eyes off it and Julian would come straight home. These people are professionals and they have a lot of experience in manipulating. As far as the DNC is concerned, there's I think five members on it and he would make one of them ambassador to Japan and another one to the court of St. James and everybody. They'd go home really very, very happy with the whole affair. As for the CIA, the CIA has got lots more things to worry about now with the reduction of its power and the unraveling of North Street. They must be spending heaps of time thinking how we're going to wiggle out of this and also messages coming from the White House saying, you know, look, get us a diversion from this. They thought of the Gilligan's Island diversion which had everybody slapping their sides with the hammer. So the White House is now saying, this is ridiculous. What you've done to us, fix it up so that he's got plenty of leverage against the CIA and the DNC and plenty of diversions he can cook up to take people's eyes off the fact that Julian Assange is being returned to Australia. Also, he can say that Australia has given us $360 billion. We are great mates and we send Assange home because the Prime Minister is very concerned. All very smooth, you know, like butchering a hot knife, I reckon. I should have had that sort of job myself. Speaking of the Esplanade Act, the amendments that to leave as put forward would carve out an exception for journalists to give them a public interest defense, which doesn't exist in the but the way the Act is written now, it says that no one can have an unauthorized possession of defense information. But one could argue that under the First Amendment, a journalist, including Julian Assange, is indeed already authorized to have possession because of the First Amendment and authorize and disseminate that information. The information Chelsea Manning gave him now that clearly there's an argument that the Esplanade Act is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the First Amendment. These amendments would try to solve that. But in the meantime, do you think have you ever heard that there's a possibility to try to quash this indictment even before Julian might be extradited to the US? Or does he, I'm not sure you know this maybe just a legal question. Does he need to be physically in the US before you could challenge this indictment? No, you know, they have, as you know, parallel offenses in the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. If they wanted to go down the path, they could say, you know, you've got a law against something to do with computers and we've got a law with something to do with computers. So you charge him over there and then we'll call it quits. There's plenty of room. You know, just the United Kingdom under the, I can't remember the name of the law. Let's take another trick. Under the Nuremberg Code, it was specifically said, if you commit a crime, you did it. Not that you were ordered to do it and you could blame the General. If you commit the crime, you did it. Well, the United Kingdom's been up to its neck in this persecution of Julian malicious, the holding Julian in communicato, in a maximum security jail, not allowing him to go to his own court hearings and so on. Just yesterday, the reporters without borders had an appointment to go ahead and sit down and on the last minute when they turned up to take up the appointment, the governor of the jail said, oh no, go home. We don't want it. So all of those, you know, also as you know, the conspiring between the Crown Prosecuting Service and the Swedish Prosecuting Authority to keep Julian in the embassy while the executives of the state of the United Kingdom were saying he can live any time. There's plenty of rot in it. There's no foundation at all for not fixing it up. None at all. Thank you, John. It was good to talk to you and good luck going forward with your tour of the US. Let's have a chat about the United Nations. Maybe we could have some friends there to get a little bit of vitality back in the consideration of where that headquarters had best be. Have you visited the UN headquarters, ever? Yes. I tried to get up to the 32nd floor, but the current Secretary-General is partisan. Oh, that's too strong a word. Has to consider things very carefully before he does. Yes, I get what Washington thinks before he does it, what you're saying. Yes, yes. He's got to look at the crystal balls. You know, in terms of Ukraine, he's ruined his neutrality. And you really need the role of Secretary-General here, an impartial one in the mode of Dag Hammershal, to step in there and try to negotiate an end to this war. And you can't do it now because he's been so pro-Ukraine from the start. And that's an unfortunate fact. But all the Secretary-General's except Dag Hammershal. And to a lesser extent, butchers, butchers, golly, you've got only one term because I might have all right wanted them out. And because he also stood up to the Americans, they all have to count out to the US. And that's very sad because that should be the role of the Secretary-General here. Butchers golly wrote in his memoir that when he was being trained as a diplomat, he thought the United States was a great power and they had excellent diplomacy. But then he found out that they don't need diplomacy just as the Roman Empire didn't need deployment. They just use brute force, basically. So that's the situation at the UN. But I'd love to bring you inside the UN again and see if we can fix up some meetings. I do know still lots of people there. Okay. Look forward to it, John. I'd love to talk to you and catch up. And I'll get Gabriel to send you all that stuff on Mexico. I've got a dash now. They're waiting for me and look for you. Absolutely. I appreciate the time you gave me. And we'll look forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks down there. All the best, John. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Bye. If you are a consumer of independent news, then the first place you should be going to is Consortium News. And please do try to support them when you can. It doesn't have its articles behind a paywall. It's free for everyone. It's one of the best news sites out there. And it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism for over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of Consortium News, it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.