in the the many of you have followed the painful and infuriating saga of julia massage, the co founder of wiki leaks who has been held in london's notorious maximum security bellmarks prison for almost 5 years now. before that, he was in self imposed exile in the ecuadorian embassy in london, the c i a, a few years ago made plans to kill or to kidnapped julian in broad daylight in the streets of london. if the us government's request to expedite him for to be unsuccessful, but that request is pending and is likely to go forward in the near future. the big

question then is whether the us justice department will offer julian a deal he can live with or whether he'll be forced to go onto the trial for his life. i'm john kerry. ok, welcome to the whistle blowers the . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 julian assigned just probably the most famous transparency, absolutist in the world. it was julian and wiki leeks, and told us through the release of the bradley. now. chelsea manning documents that the us had committed war 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 in 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. so 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 accounts of espionage and other crimes amounting to 175 years in prison. to julian famously took refuge in the ecuadorian embassy where he was spied on relentlessly by the c. i a, the dorians and the brit. busy 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 counts of espionage himself. but democrat, joe,

by new continued the prosecutor sion 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 . we have 2, yes. today, both of whom are close to juliet, 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 ford social justice and the host of the radio show 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? and 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 become politically untenable for them. given the incredible pressure that's been put on the bi heads of state, but every human rights organization, press freedom organization, etc. and of course, joe biden doesn't want julian assigned coming, showing up on the us shores with the in chains, a journalist in chains to stand trial just outside washington for publishing to information about us state 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 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 the contract to the convention rights us european can match any 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, julius on goes free. why haven't they given that assurance yet?

now greg morrow, who is on our webcast consorting news 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. and the prosecutors cannot just asked 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 san trash 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 10, freedom of expression is the 1st amendment in united states. so the court as asked us to assure he would have 1st amendment rights as well. and we note that both my pump i or i c i 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 merger co, not on that same webcast saying that the separation of powers in the us means that the executive branch, the department of justice cannot interfere with a court would say about whether it all right 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 ruled and in case that the foreigners and 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 a sondors quote not permitted to rely on the 1st amendment, then it is arguable. that is, expedition would be incompatible with article 10 of the convention. in that case, the joint would be free. but unlike the buy in cloud language, the beloved language on the desk. but if they don't give the insurance, he has to be discharged, he's gone free. no extradition on the a free speech issue. it's, there's some wiggle room in the language of the court saying that he only has an 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 person human rights and the judge finds that the traditional did not think about of what the required person's human rights that persons extradition cannot be, or the judge must discharge that. so including those human rights is article 10. so according to the crown prosecution service, he would have to be released as well on the fact that he didn't get an 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 joe in his lounge. and 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 hearing? zip up hearing about plans 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 as well, to be honest with you, i'm not really that direct, right? yeah. my, i know they're saying i'm kind of pretty low around i believe that you can get him on the street as a master street isn't the only thing to say and that's why you've seen the early spring. 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 on something major anniversary date. i think it's something that

has to be pursued on a daily basis. they continue with on the day. 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 to? 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, his personal freedom to get the hell out of belmont prison. because he did not want a future journalist to be charged for it. espionage. so that deal fell apart. when you look at the language of the statement, the barry pollock, julian's 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 morally 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 that 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 you do get the impression or right now there

are no discussions going on now. so they came to stand still, most likely because julian agreed just turn 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 born 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 a plea to a missed scrambling of classified material charge, which is a misdemeanor with a 5 year maximum term, which is already for 5 years in belmont, so theoretically 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 a half, for someone who's outside united states to uh, andrew,

to plea 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's brother and made it very clear. there's no way it'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 exact same things that bruce from said in our webcast last august. so this will be something truly massage rights and could agree to a misdemeanor, would have to be conspiracy to 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 classified 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 have what i just said about those 2 shorts they can give assurance on the 1st amendment at if drop pressure surfaces, right. he cannot be extradited then, certainly on the death penalty insurance, he can not be extradited unless they get that. so that probably would come through if they missed the april 16 deadline for those insurance is then we'll have an appeal and it gets kicked down the road. so i think that is a plea deal john that assigns could take if the u. s. gives it to him. 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 assange, 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 write 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've had it here and do talk to people on the streets, they're not that interested. you know, the people that are so fortunate assigned or are they really gung ho uh in support or just like, you know, as liberals obviously 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 on this here, you're on the streets, you want to go directly to the people and everyone's older cell phone. it's the, it's been a, they're not even working. so you gotta grab their attention. it's the new, open them get, you know, the whole world on their cell phones all the time. they should, they should go to cellphone. amount of this 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 told those that yes, 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 parents for tablets, always strike on israel is a game changer. a new red line has been established. trends no longer will outsource this confrontation with israel. meanwhile, the gaza genocide continues the the, they are probably her mother's us the store because the model girl to, i got you,

no problem seem to them out of the arguments. he, i suddenly drive. i showed my brother through he was cited to help people for a lo so now i never looked at searches as being saved. well, i guess i lost my list. that's the outcome of chicago police. it'd be a gang of chicago is like, you'd be a photo that police you really think your life as another crap thing. another could have been a doctor. a nurse could have been the next president. we can't keep losing people out here. the welcome back to louis of lawyers. i'm going to reaku. we're speaking with 2 important supporters of julian, assange, journalist and consortium news editor joe loria and active listening radio host,

randy credit, co, joe. and randy, thanks again for being with us. thank you. job. 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. assurance is 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 prison 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 20, 22 october hearing of doing some lunch and the high court. that was a us appeal to overturn the lower court's decision. not extradited him based on his mental health, his propensity for suicide in the conditions of us prisons. the judge never asked

for assurances that you didn't have to ask for thousands of churches the us and why didn't you ask us? so they put these assurances in after the trial was lost by them after the hearing . the expedition hearing was lost by them, and they went to the high court in the high court without allowing a sondors lawyers to challenge thing, which they will be able to this time that's on progress and there as well. so the side of the day accepted those assurances they didn't challenge the higher the extra, the lower court's judge's decision. that the, about the mental health and the condition risk prisons. they just accepted the you as promises. 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 testify that julian's extradition hearing about that this j. what have input. so least this time they're going to allow solve his lawyers to

challenge these assurances because the ones in that other core are not worth the paper. they were written as, as amnesty international pointed out. and 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've 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. were there 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 out there protesting for me most mia or for leonard peltier. i suppose. i don't know about the case of people who don't know about the case and those who do those who are informed or acted, this is less, we don't have the kind of energy in the, in the kind of commitment that we have in the sixties and the eighty's some people

are out there marching for civil rights and the day right. ready to and of course, to end the war in vietnam 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 to the task around it. that's the most difficult enough to crack. and the one, ironically that's the most important one, the crack is to get a lot of people on the streets in dc. yes. but that's, that's been the most resistant of all the cities that i've been in in new york city . it's better we have these uh, events in front of the british consulate, we just had one, there was about 200 people there. so way in 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 you a lot more people. but if you did, if you did it once a week,

you draw 91012 people it's, it's very difficult. and d, c, you draw and there are 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 coronel says, for people should be yes, i get up 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 this on, to being out there. i mean, should be out in front of the court house and 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. is anything that perfect sense? the cabin plaza in brooklyn, where i used to demonstrate and against the new york's rays as rock pro drug was like go out for the cabinet part was perfect. and the only thing that compares to

that is what's outside 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 used the information that we can weeks has revealed in their own reported 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. i mean, 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 and what's not allowed. you just notice if you want us to 5, and if your career is doesn't, almost everyone isn't the managed media. you're going to be doing what you need to do to get ahead of your this gets a for any of the new york times putting out

a statement with dish you go without pays with live homes. 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 batch in the actual diamond. or they put out a statement saying dropped the case because this is a threat to the 1st amendment to the free press, so on that level could have been pushed by the lawyers. i mean, 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 interests. 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 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 wheeled 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 frauds. 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. julian assigned 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 credit go 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 subsets at john kerry onto. we'll see you next time . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 the the show they just don't have to safe house after care and engagement because the trail when so many find themselves will support. we choose to look for common ground, the

the the hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . iran's retaliatory strike of israel is a game changer. a new red line has been established. thread no longer will outsource its confrontation with israel. meanwhile, the gaza genocide continues the cross talking escalation. i'm joined by my guess, eric walberg and.