crimes in iraq and afghanistan, it was julian and wiki leeks and told us through the release of the volt 7 documents that the c i a could remotely take over control of a person's car by hacking into the computer. and then could force the car off the road or off a bridge or into a tree. we learned that the c i a could take over a person, smart tv and, and turn the speaker into a microphone all while the tv appear to be off. we learned about international corruption about money laundering and fraud. busy thanks to julian assange, it was because of this never ending quest for transparency that the c i a sought to kidnap or killed julian. and the u. s. department of justice charged him with multiple counts of espionage and other crimes amounting to 175 years in prison. julian famously took refuge in the ecuadorian embassy, where he was spied on relentlessly by the c i a, the ecuadorian and the british. until the ecuadorian turned on him and handed him

over to british authorities, he's been imprisoned in harsh conditions ever since, as the us has tried to have him extradited. this is not a partisan issue in the united states republican donald trump charge julian with the espionage and the irony. since trump is now charged with multiple kinds of espionage himself. but democrat, joe biden, who continued to prosecute action and has actively sought julian's extradition. the bottom line is this, it is the c i a that's calling the shots in this case, the c, i a considers itself to be the victim here. and they won't stop until we get weeks is ruined. and julian assigned is either in prison for the rest of his life or dead that we have to yes, today, both of whom are close to julia, sancha, and both of whom are intimately knowledgeable of the challenges. any faces joe loria is the editor in chief of consortium news. he's a veteran foreign affairs journalist and is written for the wall street journal.

the boston globe. the london daily telegraph and other outlets. randy critical is a long time comedian and social justice activist. the former director of the william and counsellor fund for social justice and the host of the radio shall live on the fly, which airs on new york's w. b. a. i radio gentlemen. thanks so much for being with us. joe. i'd like to begin with you. you've attended pretty much every court hearing the julian's been involved in from the very beginning. things seem to have finally come to ahead. in his most recent appeal, julian's attorneys argued that the us justice department had not provided assurances that julian would not be executed if extradited to the united states. was that a paper work exercise or is that a real fear? inexplicable, why? after 4 years now, this routine matter where britain, one of them is being asked expedite summer to a state that has the death penalty routinely asked for an assurance from that state

that in this particular case, it would not be sought. and your home office never asked for that. we know that because and i was sitting in the court room right there, right in the row between the judge and behind me with the lawyers dot the been watching it was the king's counselor for the home office. he said that they never asked us for this assurance. i find that extraordinary, of us never offered an assurance. again, this is routine. why was that not happen? this is something that no one could really fully understand. there's some speculation that it's a way the for the us to get out of this situation. that is, but come politically untenable for them. given the incredible pressure that's been put on the by heads of state. but every human rights organization, press freedom organization, etc. and of course, joe biden doesn't want julian assigned to coming, showing up on the us shores with the in chains of journalist in chains to stand

trial just outside washington for publish and to information about us. they crunch, but that means it could be kicked down the road past the november election. this seems to be something else. and what's really important here about this, john, is that the high court, the 2 high court judges that are heard julian's, the hearing on february 20 and 21. what we're talking about here, this is by the way, just to hearing so that drilling assange could have an appeal. this is an appeal about an appeal, because he had been denied the right to have an appeal or to leave for an appeal. so those judges said in their 66 page ruling, 2 very important things on the death penalty. there were strongly blunt. i'm going to quote, they said, if extradition of a shot would quote be contrary to the convention rights us european convention. you human rights, under the british human rights act of 1998 article 3, which is against georgia in human degrading treatment to punch. in other words,

the death penalty and other words, if the extradition is contrary to that right, the extradition must be refused. that means without the assurance from the united states that they will not seek the death penalty. there's an automatic refusal of distribution freelance on goes free. why haven't they given that assurance yet? now greg murray, who was on our webcast to consorting news a few days ago, said he believed that at the last minute the us wouldn't give this assurance on the death penalty we will remain to be seen. if they do, then there's a 2 week period where the lawyers, for psalms, can challenge that assurance to see whether it is in fact a valid one or not. and i did a little research about this today, and i discovered that the attorney general must, in a federal capital punishment case, the prosecutors cannot just ask for, they need to go to a process that includes the attorney general signing off on this to have the death

penalty i would assume that marriage garland would have to also approve this assurance not to seek the death penalty. and then just to ad there's one other right that sancha has to be assured he would have and this is really an important one. and that is in conjunction with the article, 10 of the european convention human rights, which is what the british courts go by. the equivalent of article temp, freedom of expression is the 1st amendment in the united states. so the court as asked us to assure he would have 1st amendment rights as well. and we note that both my pun payer, i see a director and gordon crump or the chief prosecutor here. both said that a science would not have 1st amendment rights or that could be taken from him. and there was a supreme court decision that said that of non us citizens have no 1st amendment rights. if they, especially if they're committed the alleged crime outside united states, which is the case here. so you, the fact is though, and we have marjorie coming out on that same webcast saying that the separation of

powers in the us means that the executive branch, the department of justice, cannot interfere. what a court would say about whether those rights should be granted or not. so the us cannot grant 1st amendment rights to julie massage, cannot do it because of that supreme court decision because it's up to the judge whether he would get those rights or not. and the supreme court again will in a case that the fire does not have 1st memory. so what does that mean? well, here's where there's a difference because the high court in their ruling said, and i quote this, that if the song just quote, not permitted to rely on the 1st amendment, then it is arguable. that is extradition would be incompatible with article 10 of the convention. in that case, julie would be free. but unlike the buying club language to blunt the language on the desk, but if they don't give the insurance, he has to be discharged, he's gone free. know extradition on the a free speech issue. it's,

there's some wiggle room in the language of the court saying that he only hasn't arguable case. so that would be argued apparently at the appeals court, but just to finish, i would point out that the cape crown prosecution service on their website says that in all like tradition cases, the judge must consider whether the extradition would be compatible with the request of persons human rights and the judge finds that that tradition would not be compatible with the required persons human rights that persons extradition cannot be ordered and the judge must discharge this. so included in those human rights as article 10. so according to the crowd persecution service, he would have to be released as well on the fact that he didn't get the insurance on 1st amendment or free speech rights, which the us department of justice cannot issue. because it's up to the judge and the supreme court decided a fine, it doesn't have those. right. so i'm thinking that's looking a lot better for joining us on june. at 1st glance at this very complicated,

really, right, randy, you're also tied to the various assign support groups. actually. all, all even go farther than that. you do more than just about anybody i know in the, in the assign support groups as well as julian's to julian's wife and, and to some of these more prominent supporters. what are you hearings about hearing about plants for extradition? how are those closest to julian preparing for it? and what do they expect to do once he gets to the united states? well, to be honest with you, not really that direct. right? now they're saying i'm kind of low around. i believe that you can get him on the street as a mass street isn't the only thing to say, and that's why you've seen me. i would say

a $150.00 days last year. as more caden and trying to organize remington just don't get to court just on his birthday or something. major anniversary day. i think it's something that has to be pursued on a daily basis. you're the only thing to joe. we've been hearing many rumors over the past several weeks that justice department, prosecutors, and julian's attorneys are involved in talks not necessarily in negotiations, but in talks that might result in julian accepting some sort of

a plea deal in exchange for time served. he would then be expelled back to us trail . yeah. presumably where he could then live in freedom with his wife and children. what are you hearing? are these serious talks and are they at an advanced stage? well, i do know that there were definitely talks to, at some point and then truly into so much as you pointed out on sputnik radio last week, john, that you knew that there was a deal and julian turned down. so you'd have to agree to the espionage act, which is an extremely courageous thing for him to have for him to have done denying his own freedom's personal freedom to get the hell out of belmont prison. because he did not want a future drug wants to be charged for it. espionage. so that deal fell apart. and you look at the language of this statement. the barry pollock julians a lawyer in washington. said he, it sounds like a lot of people, i think misinterpreted this, that there is no tops. but if you look at it carefully,

it's very lauraly constructed statement. look at the language. it says that the justice department has shown no intention to resolve this matter. that doesn't mean they haven't tried, it means just a way of saying we're disappointed because we, we, they're not really serious about this, but that, that they haven't had discussions, but do, do get depression or right now there are no discussions going on now. so they came to stand still, most likely because julian agreed just turned down that plea deal that had already been discussed, but there are new parameters. now that might be a possible here, john, and this was 1st brought up by our, by a bruce upfront. and the constitutional lawyer in a, in our webcast of last august, when he pointed out that julian may be able to plead to a mis scrambling of classified material charge, which is a misdemeanor with a 5 year maximum term, which is already served 5 years in belmont, so if you read agree,

if you agree to that in the us allowed that he could walk free, you won't even have to go to australia for any more time. this is a possibility. first weighs by bruce upfront in august. and bruce also said he would have to do that remotely. in other words, from london, there's nothing against the ways of aware for someone who's outside united states to uh, andrew, to play agreement remotely from another country. it doesn't have to come to the us . and that is something he will not do. gabriel shipped in john's julian brother and made it very clear. there's no way he's going to go there because the u. s. could change their mind once he arrived a funny enough that wall street journal article now 2 weeks ago talked about mishandled and classified information. i'm doing a remotely the exact same things that bruce from set in our webcast last august. so this will be something truly mishondra, i think, could agree to a misdemeanor. it would have to be conspiracy. juve mishandled classified data

because the law as a witness for government employees, that's the one i think trump was charged on or they didn't charge biden under. so he'd have to go to a conspiracy with chelsea, man, and was a government employee to mishandled classify data and he'd have to do it remotely. if those are the terms. i think that julian could agree to that. i also think that the he seems to be maybe in the driver's seat a lot more than i thought previously could, should've what i just said about those 2 shorts that can give the insurance on the 1st amendment. and if crap ask for services, right. he cannot be extradited then, certainly on the death penalty insurance, he cannot be extradited unless they get that. so that probably would come through if they missed the april 16th deadline for those insurance is then we'll have an appeal and it gets kicked down the road. so i think that is a pre deal, john, that sounds good take us, gives it to randy. in the event, the julian is indeed extradited. active. it's like you will take up the mantle of

his defense on the street. you've organized countless actions in support of joint assigns, including very well received advertising trucks. what do you expect to do when he arrives in the united states for trial as well? um, i don't expect them to arrive united states. uh, but uh yeah, yes, exactly. does arrive in the united states, then the only thing you can do is to carry on organize. we don't have, you know, there's been a d, c. i've been on the streets of d. c. for so long out there and you've seen that truck. and as i read it here, and you talked to people on the streets, they're not that interested. you know, the people that are support june designs or are they really gung ho uh in support or just like, you know, as liberals i was a bad thing or are they willing to get out there? that's. that's the test. yeah. or really do they know? yeah. you know, people are others here you're on the street,

you want to go directly to the people and everyone's all their cell phone is the, is the, they're not even working. so you gotta grab their attention. it's the new opium get, you know, the whole world on their cell phones all the time. they should, they should go to this. don't remind them is, isn't that the truth. i'm telling you it's, it's, it's a real problem. i go into the subway and i've got the wires in my hand, my spare time and speech they give you my extension is, i think is a read news, labor magazines, or books or really they're looking at there's oh yeah. reading tools are those that yes, yeah. i can promise you that jewelry and really critical. thank you so much for being with us. we're just scratching the surface of this important issue. when we come back, we'll talk about what julian assigns can expect in the united states and why many of his supporters remain so hopeful the, to the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

the russian states never, i've side as i'm one of the most on screen, the best. most all sense enough of the same assistance, the speed, the one else holes. question about this, even though we will bend in the european union, the kremlin machine, the state on the russians to day and split our t smooth. next, even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube, the question, did you see a request for channel the

the, what is a part of the is it that the employee would post good? isn't the defense you of us and bidding the word part? is it something deeper, more complex might be present? good. let's stop without cases. let's go products of the welcome back to louis of louis. i'm john to reaku. we're speaking with 2 important supporters of julian assange. journalist and consortia news editor, joe loria, and activist and radio host, randy critical, joe and randy, thanks again for being with us. thank you, jeff. good to see you, joe. and you and i have had conversations about assurance is that the justice department has given the u. k. courts and julians attorneys assurances that really

are not worth the paper that they are printed on. for example, prosecutors have promised that julian would not be placed in solitary confinement, or in a restrictive present communications management unit. they don't have the authority to make such a promise. those decisions are made solely by the federal bureau of prisons. what has been the u. k. judges, reactions to these promises, the judges understand that the promises are empty. no, i think you're referring to the 20 a 2022 october hearing of doing a so much in the high court. that was a us appeal to overturn the lower court decision not extradited him based on his mental health, his propensity for suicide. in the conditions of us prisons. the judge never asked for assurance event. you didn't have to ask for thousands of churches the us. so why didn't you ask us? so they put these assurances in after the trial was lost by them after the hearing

. extradition hearing was lost by them. and they went to the high court in the high court without allowing a sondors lawyers to challenge to which they will be able to this time that's on progress there as well. so the side of the day accepted those assurances they didn't challenge the higher the extra, the lower courts judge's decision that the, about the mental health and the condition risk prism. they just accepted the you as problems. and as you point out, john, those decisions are not made by the department of justice by the prosecutors that we're doing what prison drilling would go into. it's done by the bureau of prisons . but i do also by an input from the c i, which a former b o p official testified at julian's expedition hearing about that this j. what have input, so least this time they're going to allow us on his lawyers to challenge these assurances because the ones in the other court were not worth the paper. they were written as, as amnesty international pointed out, in those very words,

really tell us, tell us a little bit about activism on julian's behalf on the street here in the united states. i participated in many, many protests as have you where there are no more than a dozen people. but then we see video of pro assange demonstrations elsewhere around the world in sydney, in london, in berlin, where there are tens of thousands of people participating. why are we not seeing those numbers in the us, and do you expect that to change the same way? you don't see a lot of people in the streets in europe, but after protesting for miss mo, mia or for leonard peltier. i suppose. i don't know about the case of people who don't know about the case. those who do those reward forms or act this as a lot. we don't have the kind of energy in the, in the kind of commitment that we have in the sixties and the 80, some people are out there marching for civil rights and the gay rights and the, and of course to and the warm via them. and then in the, in the eighty's in the, in the central america, i mean, i, i'm a product of that. i and so,

and at this point you don't see that many people, it's not, i know, and dc you see 10 or 12 people back that's, that's probably the most difficult left a crack in the one. ironically, that's the most important one. the crack is to get lot of people on the streets in dc. yes. but that's, that's been the most resistant of all the cities i've been in in new york city. it's better. we have these events in front of the british consulate, we just had one, there was about 200 people there. so wait. and then whenever roger waters wasn't there this last time on the 20th of february. but in the, in the past, when he would show up our system surrounded would show a lot more people like if he did, if he did it once a week, you draw 91012 people it's, it's very difficult. and d, c, you draw and there's some hardcore supporters of them. i mean, you're going to get 4 or 5 people in front of the justice department or in front of the, the white house. you know, when i, i,

i'm there just to be in the truck driver or on the street. you're driving around and just trying to, you know, trying to, you know, must erupt, some kind of energy and visibility going in front of the alexandra core. now says for people should be yes, i get there a big a big a, get a support group down there. there isn't there to have hard core group down there and, but there's like a huge, a group of maybe, you know, medium supporters massage to being out there. i mean, should be out in front of the court house in alexandria, but it's so far away. that's not like a liberal city there in alexandria or that part of alexandria. so it may, it's, it's inundated with the, you know, national security state, the current and former personnel. so that's where the you draw the jury pool. and then of course it just, it like it's hard to get to but that still while that's the place that i would be

if i could get people out there, i drive by it all the time. i've never seen anybody except for the time. you and i were there to see daniel hale. yes. that was the biggest demonstration i've ever seen in front of that building without a doubt without it. yes. and yeah. what's the, what's funny is it that, that's the courthouse lends itself to, to demonstrations. there's a nice big plaza right in front of it. that's perfect for demonstrations. the right place, anything the perfect since the cabin plaza in brooklyn, where i used to demonstrate and against the new york's races. rockefeller drug was i'd go out in front of the cabinet plazas. perfect. and the only thing that compares to that is what's outside of the alexandria eastern district of virginia courthouse, joe. and you and i have both spoken with mainstream american journalists who either will not take a position on julian's case or who are hostile to him. and this is despite the fact

that they and their news outlets have use the information that we can weeks has revealed in their own reporting. one important journalist with whom i spoke so that julian is not a journalist, but an activist. even if people don't believe he's a journalist though they have to can see that he's a publisher. why is there so much push back in the american media? i've been just gets a friend in the mainstream media and i used to be a for more than 20 years in the mainstream and i know the pressures they are involved. they're the, what is allowed on what's not allowed. you just know this. if you want us to 5, and if you're a career assessment most everyone is in the mainstream media. you're going to be doing what you need to do to get ahead of your, the schedule for any of the new york times, putting out a statement with dish be go without pays with loans. and with the guardian, the 5 partners of julian mentioned partners of julian in the 2010 publication that

has gotten in trouble right now that he's been indicted on that's in the actual diamond. they put out a statement saying drop the case because this is a threat to the 1st amendment to the free press. so on that level, you could have been pushed by the lawyers and the lawyers at the new york times of the other publications may send you back to put this out here. but i think they were reluctant about putting that out because for the most, that's one side of it. and then the other side, they are disparaging him as you just said, they don't see him as a journalist because he is not protecting the stablish. what's interesting is undermining and challenging and threatening those interest. and the whole row of the mainstream journalist is to support the agenda of the united states, particularly in foreign affairs. what not do you're not going to have a mainstream journalist agreeing with julia sondra. what do you get, however, they did publish those doctors. so this is why there's this, we will internal conflict going on, i think, in the mainstream, on the one hand,

they know it's a threat to the 1st amendment. on this the other hand, they say he's not a journalist. on the one hand, they published what he gave them because they add to had they not, they would have been exposed as the frogs. they generally are. jo, gloria and randy credit goes thanks so much for being with us. i'd like to think that it is not adversity that makes us the people we are so much as it is the way we respond to adversity. julia massage is one of the toughest and the most resilient people i have ever met. he's paying a huge personal price for what he believes it, but he's not doing it for himself. he's doing it for all of us. and now it's up to us to be there for him. i'd like to thank our guests, jewelry and really critical for joining us and providing their insights. and thanks to our viewers for joining us for another episode of the whistle blowers, i'm john kerry onto find me on subtext at john kerry onto we'll see you next time

the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 the the in 1943 at the height of world war 2, bengal was hit by famine. a year before japanese troops drove the rate is out of neighboring bermount and came close to the indian possessions of the british empire . london's response to the threat was completely inadequate. the british actively used the scorched earth policy. while retreating, they turned everything around them into an uncouth deserts, having no mercy on other people's territory. food in large amounts was exported to great britain from the starving provinces. boats used for fishing and transporting

food along the river system more confiscated from the local population, the barbaric actions of the colonial administration. let the monster its consequences. can a year up to 3800000 people die from starvation and disease caused by mail nutrition. though great britain itself had enough resources to overcome that disaster. at the same time, 170000 tons of australian wheat made its way past starving india did the british isles. i hate indians. they are a beastly people with a beastly religion. the payment was their own fault for breeding like rabbits, british prime minister, winston churchill commented on the reports of the tragedy. the famine of 1943 became the climax in the british policy of genocide against the indian population. according to historians, from 12 to 29000000 people overall died from starvation alone during the reign of

the british in india. the. the disturbing images is at least 11 people including children account, and it is really as fun going to a refugee camp in central garza as the conflicts, desktops, 33000 people. also ahead. we get too much attention from the at the i, the security agency is wherever we came to, the us a telecom app create to opens up the top of the call send about the pressure existed on him by the f b i and how apple and google makes us stronger expenses than any government. the indian officials on back to this sound to be along the growing number of desks of indian students studying, given us raising questions of the safety.