 David, I would like you to start talking about this possibility of death penalty because this is probably the most serious thing. Could it possibly be now the lynchmen, the thing that Britain can't actually agree to? Well it's unlawful for the UK to extradite anybody to a third country where they may face the death penalty. And this is meant to be a black and white law. But of course, you know, I think many of us have seen with some deep consternation why things we thought would be black and white in the law don't seem to apply in Julian's case. You know, I think there are other critical arguments that have been argued in the appeal case as well. And one of the most obvious ones is the courts should just not accept what a government says to them about what will happen to somebody when they're extradited. The courts have an obligation to independently investigate. And of course, you know, the trial judge, when they reviewed the evidence, you know, on the first occasion said there was a very real likelihood that Julian would die if he was extradited. Not from capital punishment in that case, it wasn't a legal case. But the medical evidence was compelling and we've seen that, I think, pretty starkly presented in Kim's film. That went on appeal, you know, the United States government appealed it and they said it's not for the courts to inquire into what the UK government says is not for the courts to review. They just have to accept what the United States and the UK government say. And they're not going to inquire behind it. And the first appeal court said, yep, that's right, we're not going to look into it. And rather remarkably, that was at the same time that other cases were running through the UK court system about the UK's efforts to extradite refugees to Rwanda without any legal review. And one of the arguments that's been run in the current appeal is the courts there said, well, you can't just take governments out of their work. That's not what courts are for. They may actually test the evidence. And I suppose it's a real test for if the courts are going to uphold that in Julian's case. So they're going to say courts will just accept whatever the government says and not test it. Or is it the courts job to actually test the evidence? I hope that the rule of law will have some substance. Yeah, you too. But with this landmark decision from the Supreme Court where they have said it must be evidence-based and a decision like that, maybe there's hope. Well, of course there's hope. That's why the appeal's been run. But I think many of us here that if this case is lost, literally within hours Julian could be on a CIA plane being taken to the United States. And one of the things we asked the Home Secretary cleverly in the UK on behalf of the now growing group of parliamentary friends of Assange was to give Julian the time if the case is lost to make a final appeal to the European Court of Justice. We have not had a response from the UK Home Secretary, which I find troubling. Still no response. That's disgraceful. Can we just pass the microphone to David McBride? David, all of this has happened with your case at the last moment. I only found out when I was on the payback from under. And, you know, can you tell us what's happened? Oh, I don't think it's going to surprise to anybody here. The government put in a last minute. There's a lot of similarities to the Assange case. They put in a last minute of statement of harm because it became clear that they said the information is, they caught themselves out because in the trial they said the information is, or some of the information is so secret even the judge can't read it. And then, I mean, you wouldn't believe it's not a comedy. And they even said, oh, the judge, well, if you read it, you might get kidnapped by a foreign services and they might torture your judge and then you're going to spare it. And he went, you're right, oh, well, I won't read it then. So it's a bit of a comedy. But then they, so a lot of the stuff was never read. But then they came to the sentencing, we caught them out and we said, well, if nobody has ever read this stuff, including the judge and a couple except for three journalists, how can you say it's actually damaged Australia? And they were like, ugh, ugh. And they went away and came back with this statement from some unnamed army officer saying, oh, no, very, very damaging. Potential to damage, very potential. It had a lot of potential today. And they put it in the last minute. Some cynics say it's because I've had a, I don't think I've had enough good press but I've had some not bad press the last week before my potential sentence. And they, as a gamesmanship thing, they thought, oh my God, we don't want him sentenced the week after he's been in the Good Weekend magazine on the cover. And so we'll put in a statement. You know, the judge will then say, oh, you're going to have to have six weeks, eight weeks to reply. And therefore he won't be, he will get him off the headlines in eight weeks time. So we're going to have to get another headline in eight weeks time that are, yeah, it's now the battle of the PR. We're probably the fact that they are so scared. I'd like to get better PR, but the fact, the way that they are behaving seems to be suggesting a bit like a scientist's case that they're pretty scared of the fact that a lot of the public are behind me and if they imprison me there's going to be a bit of an uproar like there was when all those ads were playing at the beginning of this. You rowdy, rowdy audience. How long are you going to have a riot before the film's done? David, it is so close because I don't know if you will remember, but after the Afghan war diaries came out there was this phrase that kept being uttered over and over again that WikiLeaks had blood on their hands. And there was a various to comment about that. This was about hypothetical blood as opposed to the real blood that had been shed in the war by the Americans. So we're talking hypothetical... Yeah, exactly. But I'll probably still get away with it. Oh, hypothetical cabinet in confidence about things that happened ten years ago in countries. We do kid ourselves that this is really some sort of super dangerous thing, where on the other hand as you rightly pointed out, unjust war lies on a grand scale. War criminals is a little bit worse than the hypothetical cabinet in confidence.