Judging Freedom - Amb, Craig Murray: Does the EU Want War?

Episode Date: March 26, 2024

Amb, Craig Murray: Does the EU Want War?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, March 26th, 2024. Our good friend, Ambassador Craig Murray, the former ambassador from the United Kingdom to Uzbekistan joins us now. Ambassador Murray, boy, is this timing ever good. And thank you very much for your time and for your analysis and for the great concept and grasping of history that you bring to these conversations that we have. I'd like to start out with breaking news. Seems to be a lot of breaking news these days, which is the decision by the High Court in Great Britain to hold off on the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, to give the United States some time to present assurances to the high court

that he will not be exposed to the death penalty and that he'll have the same respect for First Amendment. The court will have the same respect for his First Amendment rights. The Department of Justice will have the same respect for his First Amendment rights as it does to an American citizen. This strikes me as very unique because if his First Amendment rights as it does to an American citizen. This strikes me as very unique because if his First Amendment rights are respected, there is no case against him. Since, as you know, we have a Supreme Court ruling in the U.S., commonly called the Pentagon Papers case, which immunizes the press from criminal and civil liability for publishing the truth. But I don't want to get ahead of myself and I don't want to get ahead of you. Mr. Ambassador, your thoughts and your analysis, please, on the decision this morning

by the High Court of Britain on Julian Assange. I think the first thing to say is that the High Court dismissed all the substantive points in the appeal, all the more important points it dismissed. It dismissed the fact that the treaty says there should be no political extradition between the UK and US. It dismissed the substantive freedom of speech argument, saying that was for the US court to judge and would be covered by the First Amendment in the US, with only the caveat that, as you say, the United States has to give assurances that the First Amendment will be applied and not disapplied due to nationality.

And it dismissed various arguments about the conditions of imprisonment in the United States and the way the justice system operates in the United States. So we're only left with two points of appeal being allowed. The court said three points, but actually the freedom of expression point and the no discrimination by nationality point are the same point because the court only allowed the freedom of expression point with respect to discrimination by nationality and whether the first amendment would would apply so the only points of appeal allowed were whether he'd be discriminated against in not having first amendment rights and whether the us would would appear would would apply the death penalty if further charges were brought or would guarantee not to apply the death penalty so so really you know we're looking at very very limited grounds to continue

and grounds which rule out the defense from any more arguing about the war crimes that were exposed for example which we were hearing in court they're not going to be allowed to do that anymore this is going they can't argue about the public interest effect of the leaked material uh this this is now coming down to some small technical points which the united states is able to um get rid of completely by by diplomatic assurances and how can those diplomatic assurances. And how can those diplomatic assurances be enforced? There's no way they can be enforced. The DOJ, the Department of Justice, could tell this British court whatever it wants to hear, and then some federal judge in Virginia,

which is where they always try these cases because they always get convictions, could very well say, oh no, the First Amendment only applies to Americans. That would be absurd, and there'd be no basis for it, but there'd be not much the DOJ could do about it. And at that point, the British courts would have no jurisdiction over him because he'd

be in American control. I share your lack of happiness over the radical paring down of the bases for appeal. But unless his lawyers and the DOJ enter into some sort of a plea agreement, which would result in him going directly from London to Australia, where he'll be freed immediately. I don't have much optimism that he won't eventually be extradited. Do you agree? Yeah, it's very hard to be optimistic about it. There is another possible stage, which is an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights after the High Court process finally concludes. But that depends on the UK government not physically extraditing him in the 48 hours or so it would take to get a stop order from the European Court. And it depends on the United

Kingdom honoring a stop order from the European Court if they get one, which is politically not certain. The diplomatic assurances point is interesting. I mean, firstly, there's a long history in other cases, both with the UK and with other countries in the world, of the diplomatic assurances being given and then simply broken exactly on the grounds that the State Department or the Justice Department can't actually enforce the assurances they give anyway. They're not responsible for penal conditions or for sentences or for decisions of judges. And that's particularly interesting in this question of whether or not

the First Amendment would apply to him as a foreign citizen, because that would be up to the judge. It's not up to the Justice Department. The prosecutors can perhaps say, we won't ask for the disapplication of the First Amendment, but that doesn't stop the judge doing it if he wants to. And there's a Supreme Court case, which doesn't sound immediately relevant but it was about overseas institutions which receive US aid and as a condition of receipt of that aid they're not allowed to say certain things they built a case in the United States which went all the way to the Supreme Court saying that their First Amendment rights were

being damaged and the Supreme Court ruled that they didn't have First Amendment rights because they weren't in the Supreme Court ruled that they didn't have First Amendment rights because they weren't in the United States and they weren't American citizens, which, of course, was the position of Julian at the time that he published the material on WikiLeaks. He wasn't in the United States and he wasn't a US citizen. And what was particularly interesting about that Supreme Court decision was that it contained a paragraph saying one of the reasons why it was saying that

constitutional rights couldn't be claimed by foreign citizens living abroad in dealing with US authorities was that otherwise this would, for example, apply to the treatment of enemy combatants. And it didn't mention Guantanamo. It didn't mention Guantanamo, but that's what it meant. It meant that if, say, Julian can claim First Amendment rights as governing stuff he published while abroad, not being an American citizen, then why do the people in Guantanamo Bay not have constitutional rights also? So it's a more complex legal tangle than it sounds. Are the British courts, I mean, the American courts,

boast about their independence? Unfortunately, in that respect, justice is determined by the personality of the judges. Some judges are fiercely independent of the executive branch and the Congress. Many are not. But by and large, if you can answer this, maybe the answer is the same. It depends on the judge. Are British judges independent of the British government? Only in the formal sense. I mean, the point is that they all come from this very same

closed political establishment. They belong to the same institutions. They attend the same schools. Just to give an example, the judge in this case, who's just given this ruling, the senior judge on the case, Dame Victoria Sharp, her brother Richard Sharp arranged an £800,000 loan for the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and in consequence was made, well, in consequence is a claim, I should say, immediately afterwards, possibly by coincidence,

became chairman of the BBC, despite having no interest in or history of broadcasting experience whatsoever prior to that. So, you know, you have a judge whose brother has given a million dollar loan to the Prime Minister. And the last ruling, big ruling that Julian lost on his case over prison conditions and his health, the judge in that case was the best friend and former college roommate of the government minister in charge of Julian's extradition. So formally there's independence, but in fact these people all belong to the same closed circle circle.

And for example, the minister in charge of Julian's extradition meets regularly and lunches with the judge who found against him in that instance. So it's not a question of there being some secret committee or written orders being handed out. It's just these people all know each other and they know what they are supposed to do. That's the way the system works. All right. So doubly violative of the concept of independence is the well-known, I'm going to be very candid and direct in my choice of words here, Mr. Ambassador, and I certainly don't include you in this, the well-recognized British government subservience to the wishes of the American government. Do you agree?

I think that's absolutely true. And I've got no doubt that part of what is being deliberately done is that this whole thing is being kicked into the long grass continually. And of course, they have what they want want Julian is in a maximum security prison in extremely poor health which is deteriorating both deteriorating mental health and physical health so during the process they have what they want they can spin the process I as long as they want in a way that can't possibly damage them but continues to damage Julian and my strong suspicion at the moment is that the wish of the Biden administration is for Julian to continue to be held and not released but not brought to the United States

ahead of the election where he would be an additional complication. And Joe Biden's got enough problems with his democratic coalition without having a big, a huge freedom of speech issue land and an issue which is going to annoy exactly the same constituency in his party, which is annoyed by his support for the genocide in Gaza. It's just going to compound Biden's problems with his own party. So I think this kind of toothless, kicking it down the line and all the way time keeping Julian

in maximum security jail, that is the British establishment doing in detail what the Americans want them to do there was uh there is evidence this is not a rumor there is evidence that the former uh head of the central intelligence agency who was also the former secretary of state mike pompeo at one point i don't know in which job he had, but in one of those two jobs, actually convened some of his colleagues to plan the murder of Julian Assange. This is not a rumor. There's evidence to this. It obviously didn't happen,

although one could argue that he's slowly being murdered in this awful prison. Would the British subservience to American wishes have included something as radical, drastic, and criminal as that? That is, would British authorities have looked the other way, or would they have arrested the murderers? They certainly wouldn't have arrested the murderers. They may have issued a note of protest. I think you lost me there. They may have issued some kind of weak protest afterwards. The chances of them attempting to arrest the murderers or arrest anyone involved in the CIA plot are unkilled, bluntly.

There's also, I mean, part of that operation, which actually did happen, was, of course, they commissioned spying on Julian in the Ecuadorian embassy, which included spying on the legally privileged conversations between Julian and his legal defense team. And one of the astonishing things in this case is the United States government has admitted in court that they have all the tapes and spied on Julian and his defense team. And it's just astonishing to think that you have a legal case where one side confesses to spying on the legal conversations of the other side and it hasn't led to the case being dismissed.

It wasn't dismissed because the judges, the British judges accepted assurances from the United States that the CIA hadn't passed the tapes on to the Justice Department. Now, I mean, that's just so wildly unbelievable as to be as to be laughable. And if and if the CIA didn't pass the information on to the Justice Department, why were the CIA collecting it in the first place? What's the point? Why is an American taxpayer doing, paying for the CIA to do expensive spying and then lock it in the cupboard and not show it to anybody? It's just, there's so many strange things in this case, but that's one of them.

Let's transition to the abstention by the U.S. government at the U.N. Security Council yesterday. So there have been five resolutions involving a ceasefire. The first three, the U.S. vetoed. The fourth was a U.S. resolution, but it was so watered down, it didn't actually call for the ceasefire, called for serious consideration of one. And the Russians and the Chinese, in my view, quite properly vetoed it. The fifth was yesterday, which was a serious resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the exchange of hostages. And the U.S. abstained, and Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed his extreme disappointment

by preventing a high-ranking delegation from his government from coming here, even though his Minister of Defense is already here. What's your take on the American change of face at the UN Security Council? And what's your take, Mr. Ambassador, on the significance, if any, of the UN Security Council vote? Well, it is significant. It definitely is a change of US stance. You have to ask why. And I think it comes down again to the pressure Joe Biden's feeling from within his own party and his own coalition of support. And I think that has caused them to not for once veto a ceasefire motion. It's not a tremendously radical motion. It's not calling for a permanent ceasefire. It's calling for an immediate ceasefire for a port. But that's certainly not something that they were, were going to abstain on a few weeks ago. And notably the UK, um, actually voted for it.

So, you know, the United States has lost even its most, uh, its most loyal henchmen. Um, it's not a, it's not a chapter seven resolution. So it doesn't authorize the use of force to enforce it. It doesn't mandate sanctions. So it's not a resolution. It is a resolution which is legally binding. It's legally binding in international law, as all Security Council resolutions are. But it doesn't mandate action.

It doesn't oblige you to apply sanctions. And so the United States has been trying to spin it as having no legal force. It does have legal force. But it doesn't oblige you to do anything to bring pressure on Israel. It just obliges you to stop facilitating them, which, of course, is difficult for the United States because they are facilitating. Here's a montage of the various statements

by people at the UN Security Council at or about, or excuse me, right after the passage of the ceasefire resolution. Cut number 14, Chris. We fully support some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution. And we believe it was important for the council to speak out and make clear that our ceasefire must, any ceasefire, must come with the release of all hostages.

The resolution just voted upon makes it seem as if the war started by itself. Well, let me set the record straight. Israel did not start this war, nor did Israel want this war. This must be a turning point. This must lead to saving lives on the ground. This must signal the end of this assault of atrocities against our people. A nation is being murdered. A nation is being dispossessed. The resolution, Mr. Ambassador, have any more effect on the ground in Gaza than the determination by the International Court of Justice that Israel has laid the groundwork or the framework for genocide. And it should not be engaging in genocide without finding that it did or ordered that it not do so?

No, I don't think there'll be any immediate impact on ground from this resolution. Again, like the ICJ finding of plausible genocide, you will see it start to work through the legal and political systems but but but also the judicial systems in other countries for example courts in the Netherlands have stopped the Netherlands exporting any arms or parts to Israel, which includes parts for fighter jets, which are actually quite important to Israel. And there have been examples of that in other countries as well. It all adds to the growing political pressure and, of course, to the isolation of Israel

because in not ceasing fire, Israel is now in contravention of both the ICJ and the Security Council. And of course the ICJ rulings, although legally binding, are dependent upon the Security Council for enforcement. That's the way it works um and up until now the lack of any call for ceasefire uh by the security council was an important missing part in a missing component in in that chain of of political and and and legal um obligations so um i think it will help in the longer term, but none of this affects, you know, as we speak, people are dying in Gaza, and none of this affects the immediate prospect. Ambassador Craig Murray, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for

the unique perspective that you bring to the show. So much appreciated. We hope you'll come back again soon. Thank you. I would love to. Of course. Coming up right now, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.