 We're joined now by John Pilger, a legendary filmmaker and journalist. He's here in Sydney, Australia, just in from London. John Pilger has been as close to Julian Assange throughout this ordeal as just about anyone. John, thanks for joining us. What was your reaction when you heard the Supreme Court had denied his petition for appeal? Well, of course, Joe, I was appalled. But then, you know, I've been following this case as a friend of Julian's since 2010. I've been in every level of court in the United Kingdom, sat in them from the lower court, magistrates court, high court, Supreme Court, the lot. And here we are with the Supreme Court saying it will not accept Julian's appeal against extradition, because there's no arguable point of law, quote unquote, no arguable point of law. The arguable point of law that was certified by the High Court and put forward by Julian's lawyers was that the United States had offered, quote unquote, guarantees that Julian would not be mistreated. He would not be put into Sam's special administrative conditions that is dropped into a hellhole in an American prison. That was the guarantee, but the guarantee was of course cancelled because they almost immediately said, if you like in the same breath, well, unless he upsets us, and if he upsets us, then the guarantees are out. That's not even the arguable point of law. The arguable point of law is that these fake guarantees, these phony guarantees were put outside a court of law. The hearing had finished in the lower court under Judge Baraitza last year, when she said that Julian should not be extradited because of his precarious health, mental and physical health. And then after the court was wrapped up, along comes the United States, and in a so-called diplomatic message, the word diplomatic used it terrifically here, no doubt, to the UK says that we will guarantee. Now, that is making a mockery out of due process. It's not within the court, the court's time, the court's jurisdiction, it almost abuses the court. And yet, when this came round to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK, they say there's no arguable point of law. I'm willing to perhaps go down some of the winding paths of British justice having been paths, having been cobbled over hundreds of years. But this is nonsense. This is political. This is grotesque. That's my reaction. Does this mean overall about journalism and about democracy in Western countries like the US and Britain? Well, yeah, I would say, Joe, it first means what does it mean about justice? Because, yes, I realize journalism is a stake, but frankly, journalism, so much of journalism, it's shot itself in its collective feet a long time ago. You know, all we deal with really the journalists who need protecting are the honorable exceptions, those that come near to being like Julian Assange, those who practice real journalism. They are a minority. You and I know them. They are a minority now. And you and I have both come through mainstreams. I am the United Kingdom, first here in Australia, the United Kingdom, mostly you and the United States. We know that the spaces that were open to us as practicing and distinguished journalists are now closed. So I'm not sure about journalism. I'm not sure about that argument, but perhaps putting that aside, what it means for justice? Certainly justice for any whistleblower, anyone who wants to tell the truth about some injustice within a system, within a government, one of its vested interests within a corporation, a dire. In the middle of a very dangerous situation in Ukraine, we need to know the truth and what are we getting? We're getting a tsunami of jingoism and lies, almost none of it interrupted by truth. And it's not about being on one side or the other. It is about being truth, journalistic truth. And frankly, that's allowed. What we're seeing writ large in the reporting of Ukraine, so called, is the Julian Assange effect. We're just there are no investigative journalists. You and I will remember when the term investigative journalists didn't exist. The whole idea of a journalist is to investigate. But now, yes, there is investigative journalism, but I mentioned it's in the minority, but it's endangered by this. Justice, if they can do if a system bent on punishment. And clearly the US UK judicial system is punitive in this case, and in many other cases. I was thinking tonight about the Angola three. So I knew, Albert Wood Fox, who was one of three men who went into Angola, the notorious Angola prison in Louisiana. They were there for 40 years in solitary. And Albert Wood Fox, I couldn't believe the man was saying they were there because, yes, they'd unlike Julian that actually committed crimes to begin with and they were shoved away in the southern prison system very quickly. But really, what earned them their 40 years was political. They were members of the Black Panther Party, and they brought the principles of the Black Panther Party into prisons. They became a threat. That's Julian Assange. He's a threat the idea, the very notion that a secret grand jury remember they sat for a couple of years concocting charges which ended up with. Total of 17 charges, all of them concocted, almost all of them based on an out of date of all of the espionage that would give Julian 175 years. This is not a system of justice. This is a system of punishment. And I suppose, what I'm saying here is that that our justice system in Britain, in the United States, perhaps in this country, Australia to, but certainly in Britain and the United States has diminished to a system of punishment. And that should worry everybody. It's a wake up call. Thank you, John Pildre very much for a few minutes out of your time to talk to us about Julian Assange. You're very welcome.