that way, so many of you have followed the painful and infuriating sag julian assigns the co founder of wiki leaks who is being held in london is 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 kidnap 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 to reaku. welcome to the whistle blowers,

news . 2 2 2 2 2 2 julian assigned just probably the most famous transparency, absolutist in the world. it was julian and wiki leaks, who 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 leaks 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,

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 vehicle dorians 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 tried to have him extradited. this is not a partisan issue in the united states republican donald trump charge julian with espionage. an irony since trump is now charged with multiple kinds 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, as 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, extradite someone 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 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 was family blunt, and i'm going to quote, they said, if extradition of a shot would quote be contrary to the convention rights. just european commissioner, 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 freelance on goes free. why haven't they given that assurance yet? now greg murray, who was on our webcast, a 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 sondra 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, i assure, and 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 10, 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 know that

both my pompei o. s. c i, a director and gordon crumpler, 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 the 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 with 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 enrolled in a 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 willing said, and i quote this,

that if a song just 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, a drilling would be free. but unlike the by and clad language, the beloved 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 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 that tradition would not be compatible with the required persons human rights that persons extradition can not be ordered of the judge must discharge this. so included in those human rights as

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 this looking a lot better for joining us on you. 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 hearings about 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 now. 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 i will say, and that's why you've seen the retreat. 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 date. i think it's something that has to be pursued on a daily basis. you would only jo, 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 and 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 yet 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 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 you do get the impression of 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 born up by our, by a bruce upfront and a 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 served 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, ambrose 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 play agreements 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 mishondra. i think could agree to a misdemeanor would have to be conspiracy. jews 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 have what i just said about those 2 shorts. they can give the insurance on the 1st amendment at 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 16 deadline for those insurance is then we'll have an appeal and i gets kicked down the road. so i think that is a pre deal, john, that sondra could take if the u. s. 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 write united states. uh, but uh, yeah. if in fact he 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 dc for so long out there. and you've seen that

truck and as i read it here and you 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 i was a bad thing or are they willing to get out there and that's, that's the test. yeah. or really do they know? yeah, you know, people or others here you're on the street, you want to go directly to the people and everyone's other cell phone is the, it's the, they're not even working. so you got to grab their attention. it's the new opium get, you know, all or cell phones all the time. they should, they should go to cell phone. 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 newspaper magazines or books or really they're looking at there's oh yeah, reading tools are those they ask you,

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. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. the fixtures designed to simplify all confused who really wants a better will's image. it just shows you few fractured images presented to this. but can you see through their illusion going underground can

the out probably her my little sister store because the model girl that i got you no problem seem to them out of the know nothing 30 minutes the side of the drive i showed my brother through he was sudden to help people for a lo so now i never looked at searches as being the same. well, i guess i lost my list. that's the outcome of chicago police. it'd be gang chicago is why you get photos that police. you lose your life as old as another crime. say this could have been a doctor. a nurse could have been the next president. we can't keep losing that people out here, the

welcome back to louis of louis, 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, john. good to see you, joe. and you and i have had conversations about assurances 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 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 some lunch and the high court that was a us appeal to overturn the lower court's decision knocked,

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. so 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 they are as well. so i, they 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 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 julie, what prison julie 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 i least this time they're going to allow solve his lawyers to challenge these assurances because the ones in that other court 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, 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 out there protesting for miss mo, mia or for leonard peltier. i suppose they don't know about the cases. 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, 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, so. ready in the course to end the warranty at them. and then in the, in the eighty's in the, in the central america. i mean, i, i'm a product of that. and so at, at this point, you don't see that many people, it's not, i know, and dc, you see 10 or 12 people back. it's probably the most difficult enough to crack and the one i romilly, that's the most important one. the crack is to get lot of people on the streets in dc. yes. but definitely 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 guess they're a big a big to 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 media, you know, medium supporters massage 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 courthouse lends itself to 2 demonstrations. there's a nice big plaza right in front of it. that's perfect for demonstrations. the right place, anything that's perfect, since the cabin plaza in brooklyn, where i used to demonstrate in and against the new york races. 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 alexander, the 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 reporting. one important journalist with whom i spoke, said 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 either 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 on what's not allowed. you just notice if you want us to 5, and if you're a 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 buy hayes with live homes and uh, 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 could have been pushed by the lawyers and the lawyers at the new york times of the other publications may send you. but to put this out here too, but i think they were reluctant about putting that out because for the most, that's one side of it. and on 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 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 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 1898 of the united states won the war against spain and gain control of the philippines. the people of the philippines held that the americans would help over

throw spanish rule and grand independence to the country. but the united states was by no means willing to give freedom to the philippines and side as just another colony. 1999, the filipinos began armed resistance to the new occupied american troops were barely able to occupy the territory of the philippine republic. but that patriot started a desperate guerrilla war, washington was forced, as in new reinforcements and triple the number of its troops on the islands. the us army suffered heavy losses. the americans took it out on the population. general jacob smith, in revenge for the gorilla attack on the garrison in the city of fall on ega, quartered to kill everyone over 10 years old. the monstrous gulf of terror, according to the most conservative estimates, led to the death of about 200000 filipinos. the americans managed to suppress the gorilla as only 14 years.