Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh: How War Escalates

Episode Date: March 26, 2024

Matt Hoh: How War EscalatesSee 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 26, 2024. Matt Ho joins us now. Matt, always a pleasure, my friend, no matter what we're talking about. We have a lot to talk about. We'll start with the news of the day, which is the partial rejection and partial relief granted to Julian Assange, the man whose image is over your left shoulder, by the High Court in England. I haven't had a chance to read the opinion, but I do understand that many of the bases for his appeal were rejected. However, he was not automatically extradited, and there still are a couple of hooks on which he can hang his hat. I'll let you take it from there. Right. So the court today, the British High Court, found that he qualified for an appeal on three aspects of his overall appeal. So the court rejected about six other aspects, six or seven other aspects of his appeal. That included the idea presented as part of his appeal that this was a political prosecution, as well as that he would

not be able to receive a fair trial. The court also rejected entering as new evidence, and this is really astounding to me and I think to many others. But the British court rejected entering into evidence the understanding that the United States government plotted to kill Julian Assange, to assassinate him, as well as all the spying the CIA did on him while he was basically under house arrest at the Ecuadorian embassy for all those years. But the three aspects for which they found that he could appeal were that he would be prejudiced by not being an American citizen. He would not have the protections of the First Amendment and that he would be tried under the penalty of death. And now the thing I think, Judge, where everybody says, good God, how could this get any crazier? How could this be more unfair? How could, how could this be more subversion of the rule of law and anything, any idea of justice is the fact that the British court

said to the Americans, basically, uh, these are what he's able to appeal upon. We're concerned he doesn't have first amendment protections. We're concerned he's gonna be prejudiced because he's not an American citizen. And we could, we're concerned that, um, excuse me, he, he won't have First Amendment protections. We're concerned to be prejudiced because he's not an American citizen. And we could we're concerned that he won't have. Oh, my gosh. I forgot what the third one was, Judge. Death penalty. Death penalty. Thank you very much. And what we need from the Americans are assurances that that he will receive these protections. So as you and I were talking before, I mean, this is based, what type of assurances are we talking about?

The letter of the United States government, the word of the US justice department? First of all, the Department of Justice cannot assure or insure what the court is going to do. The Department of Justice could make a promise to the British High Court, and once Assange is here, change its mind, and there's nothing anybody could do about that.

The Department of Justice is part of the mechanism of the American government, the biggest liars in the world and in the history of the world. So they might as well rely on the wind as to rely on the words of the federal government. But while I breathe, I hope there's still an opportunity that the, I forget what the name of the court is, the one that's in

Strasbourg, France, which is not exactly filled with lovers of America. The European Court on Human Rights, which is based upon the European Convention on Human Rights. And yeah, so what will occur is May 20th has been set as a date for the next hearing. And at that point, if the assurances have been provided by the United States, the court will act upon that. If the assurances are not provided by the United States, Assange will be allowed to enter into an appeal hearing, an actual appeal hearing, because what occurred last month was not an appeal hearing per se. It was a hearing to establish whether or not there's merit for an appeal hearing. And so what happened today was the court said, yes, there is merit for an appeal hearing, and that will be on May 20th. But again, if the United States just comes forward and says, oh, we promise not to do any of these things, we give you our word. And again,

this is the same government that just again today, through John Kirby, said that what is occurring in Gaza is self-defense, not genocide, right? We just saw with a ceasefire resolution that the U.S. abstained from yesterday, the Americans, you know, including the ambassador at the U.N. saying how this is a non-binding resolution and now going to the mat over that, claiming that, you know, I mean, so just making fabrications, outright lies. Let me stop you here. I want to address the First Amendment aspect of this, but before we do, I would like your thoughts on what Mrs. Assange had to say. Sonia, play all five in order. So, Stella, one through five. It's going to take about two minutes, but she's like you. She's passionate and articulate. Five years into this case, the United States has managed to show the court that their case remains an attack on press freedom, an attack on Julian's life. What the courts haven't agreed to look at is the evidence that the United States has plotted to assassinate Julian, to kidnap him. Because if it acknowledges that, then of course he can't be sent to the United States.

Julian is a political prisoner. He is a journalist, and he is being persecuted because he exposed the true cost of war in human lives. This case is a retribution. It is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war, they will come after you. They will put you in prison and they will try to kill you. Julian is just a few days away from the fifth anniversary of his arrest and imprisonment in Belmarsh prison. He has been in Belmarsh for five years without conviction, and the charges against him are to punish him for publishing the truth, for publishing evidence of the war crimes committed by the country that is trying to extradite him.

Now the UK courts have invited the United States to issue assurances. The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought. Julian should never have been imprisoned for a single day. This is a shame on every democracy. Julian is a political prisoner. You know, when Bradley Manning, now called Chelsea Manning, was indicted for the theft of the materials that Julian exposed, the Obama Justice Department took the position that the First Amendment protected Julian. It wasn't until the Trump DOJ came in, perhaps influenced by Mike Pompeo, who was either director of the CIA or secretary of state, was part of this plot to have Julian murdered. I believe he was part of the plot to have Julian murdered.

And then, of course, the Trump administration indicted him. Now, it's interesting that the court said First Amendment assurances. The First Amendment bars the prosecution. If true First Amendment assurances are given, they'll dismiss the case. The Pentagon Papers case could not be clearer, but that a journalist is protected from criminal and civil liability for the exposition of matters material to the public interest, no matter what they are, no matter what they say, and no matter how he gets them. That's the First Amendment. But I don't know what these judges understood or what they expect. I don't know if they're just cogs in the big government wheel in Great Britain.

They are. They are. These judges have ties to the British intelligence services. So there was a previous judge in these two judges, two of the three judges have had ties represented, worked for, worked with the British intelligence services. And then the third judge, her family is intimately tied to the highest levels of the British government.

Her brother, after he helped protect a very senior British official, was made the chair or the head of the BBC. Oh, her brother. I mean, there's all these stories that. Her brother is the one that arranged the loan to Boris Johnson. That's correct. For 800,000 pounds. That's about a million dollars. to Boris Johnson. That's correct. For 800,000 pounds. That's about a million dollars. Right.

Right. That's exactly right. I couldn't remember if it was Johnson or Theresa May off the top of my head, but absolutely. And then he got appointed as the head of the BBC afterwards. I mean, so it's this type of corruption, this type of establishment, the establishment taking care of itself, the elites taking care of one another, that was always going to doom Julian Assange. And you could see that in the way that their judgments are made, the way their logic works. For example, the way they, this idea that they would not allow the evidence that the CIA applied to

assassinate Julian. Their argument for not allowing that evidence was basically that this evidence is now moot. Because he is going to be extradited, it answers the need to assassinate him. So there is no longer a concern about assassination. I mean, just this really crazy logic that since we're going to be doing what the people who wanted to assassinate him to begin with wanted us to, then we don't have to worry about him being assassinated more, which means the assassination plot isn't anything we need to consider. I mean, this incredible logic that is just, it's lying. It's lying. It's gaslighting. In America, you know, we have judges who are government stooges and we have judges who are courageous. You remember the judge in Daniel Ellsberg's case. He's on trial for espionage. This is the case that spawned the Pentagon Papers case. The Pentagon Papers case protected the publishers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. It did not protect the thief, Daniel Ellsberger, as courageous as he was.

See, literally in a courtroom on trial for espionage, when his lawyers get word that the FBI has broken into his psychiatrist's office and stolen his medical records. Today, of course, they wouldn't have to do that. They would hack the psychiatrist's computer. He might not even know it was hacked, but they did that then. When this federal judge found out what happened, he didn't even ask the government what they thought. He dismissed the case, and the government was too embarrassed to get a new're not going to see in Great Britain. Transitioning, Matt, were you surprised or is this more deception? You mentioned this briefly, that the United States abstained rather than opposing a resolution by the Security Council of the United Nations, before which you gave a brilliant and gifted and articulate lecture last Friday. We'll get to that in a minute. But were you

surprised that the U.S. abstention after having opposed three, written one that meant nothing, which the Russians and the Chinese quite properly opposed, and then the U.S. abstains and Netanyahu throws a temper tantrum. I was present for that resolution because the debate on that resolution the United States put forward last Friday, which was basically an opportunity to allow the continuation of the killing of Palestinians, just dressed up to look like some type of ceasefire resolution. You know, I was able to witness that in person. How disingenuous this all is and how it is just Orwellian language utilized for propaganda purposes. Again, the idea of calling genocide self-defense, you know, that type of the previous ceasefire resolutions that were vetoed by the United States were done, were vetoed. We need to we must veto these ceasefire resolutions in order to achieve a ceasefire, that type of Orwellian language. And that's what we saw with the American resolution on Friday.

And so this resolution that went forward yesterday and was passed with an extent because of an extension by the United States is already being challenged by the United States as well. So it was never, the United States is trying to speak out of both sides of its mouth. It's trying to avoid the pressure that it necessarily should be under for supporting and enabling and allowing and protecting Israel's genocide. But you saw how they were going to try and use language to back out of what they were abstaining from. Immediately, actually during the debate, the American ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, claimed that the ceasefire resolution was non-binding.

And that's been repeated again all throughout Washington. And of course, the American media is picking up on that. And it's just absolutely preposterous at no basis at all in Security Council resolutions and the Charter of the United Nations. But the Americans are just going to proclaim it and to stand by it as if they are five-year-old children throwing temper tantrums. But this is all part of their propaganda machine, part of their narrative to try and speak out of both sides of their mouths. So claiming that they are not in favor of genocide, claiming that they don't want to see innocent people hurt, at the same time providing the bombs and the shells and the rockets to carry out that killing. Here's some of what you may have seen. Were you there for the actual vote?

On Friday, I was, but not yesterday. Okay, so here's the comments they made. This will get under your skin. Here's the comments they made after the vote. This is a cut number 10, Sonia. This is a montage of the United States, Israeli, and Palestinian ambassadors to the UN commenting on the vote after it was taken. Cut number 10. 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. Now, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the United States ambassador to the UN,

was she there when you spoke? Did she patiently listen to you or was she out of the room? No, she was out of the room. Ambassador Woods was present when I spoke. I wish she had heard you. She could have used your instructions. Hey, Judge, this will get under your skin. So Ambassador Woods, who's a deputy ambassador for the United States at the United Nations, he got up and walked out during my talk, during my speech.

The American ambassador or deputy ambassador, but the human being representing the government of the United States of America at the UN in New York City, listening to a person with your courage, intellect and background who served the nation in the U.S. Marine Corps, walked out in the middle of your talk. Correct. About the four minute mark, he got up and walked out. Wow. Well, all right, back to raising each other's blood pressure. Here's Admiral Kirby. This is not very long. Cut number 11, Sonia. Here's Admiral Kirby on whether this is binding or not binding. The U.N. Secretary General said after the vote, this resolution must be implemented. You say it's non-binding. So who is right here?

And if it's non-binding, if, as you say, it does not change anything, why has the administration blocked so many pretty similar resolutions in the past? Because they didn't condemn Hamas. I've said that repeatedly. This one doesn't condemn Hamas either. Because they didn't condemn Hamas, and because they also just called for a ceasefire with no linkage to the hostages.

This one, the reason why we can't support it but didn't veto it is because it does link hostages and a ceasefire, which is in keeping with our policy. And on the binding thing, is it binding, non-binding? It's a non-binding resolution. There are so many values. What is the value of a non-binding? It's a non-binding resolution. There are so many lies. What is the value of a non-binding resolution? It can't be non-binding. The effort would be just an academic exercise. They might as well have had this debate at Columbia University amongst academics if it's

non-binding. There are so many lies in that span there, Judge. This is just breathtaking. And I don't want to lose my composure or my... But with the non-binding aspect, there are no non-binding Security Council resolutions. Under Article 25, they are all binding. It just matters then whether they fall under Article 6 or Article 7, but they are all binding. You'd have to expressly put out a security resolution that declared it non-binding for it to be non-binding. This is written down. This is in black and white. This is in the letters of the U.N. Charter.

I mean, so the outrageousness of this lie, but you see it all throughout what Kirby says. There was a UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire that condemned Hamas. The U.S. vetoed that. The other aspect, he was talking about the linkage of the hostages. This resolution that was passed to Money does not link the release of the hostages to a ceasefire. They are two separate causes. There are two separate actions within the resolution. There is no linkage. But these people, Judge, they just lie and they lie and they lie. And they assume they're going to get away with it. They operate on this assumption that they will not be challenged. No one will hold them to account.

And no one will hold them to account. John Kirby will eventually move on from this post after lying to support genocide, after lying to protect and cover for genocide. And he'll end up getting a job at AT&T or Exxon Mobil or General Motors or wherever. Probably should get a job at Boeing or someplace like that. Right. But I mean, the the the the goal, the brazenness of this, but they believe they will get away with it. They they see no accountability that they will no one will hold them responsible. There will be no consequences. So they lie. They lie as part of their propaganda effort. And this is something we talked about a few months back, judge, about how when they speak, when Linda Thomas Greenfield or John Kirby or whoever says these things, just offers forward these lies so overtly and so happily, they're not speaking to us.

They're not speaking to the rest of the world. They're speaking to their own base of supporters, right? They are providing propaganda to those who already believe them. So they're providing the propaganda to the mainstream media. They're providing the propaganda to the members of Congress. And of course, they're providing the propaganda to their political base that will support them regardless of whatever evil they take part in. But it's just this watching this judge with this, how willingly, how openly, how easily they lie. I mean, the psychopaths on display here, this is just, it's breathtaking. Is there, I'm transitioning, Matt, is there any credibility in the intelligence community to the statement by the United States government within 55 minutes

of the conclusion of the assault on the concert hall in Moscow, that A, Ukraine did not do it, and B, it was ISIS-K. Could anybody believe statements like that made literally before the dust had settled? Right. How abrupt and how quickly it was. It makes me, you know, they doth protest too much. Certainly, there's an argument made that the Islamic State carried out these attacks by itself. I mean, they have the resources, the wherewithal, they have the motivation. The idea that the Islamic State will work with the Ukrainians, that's a bit of a stretch too. I mean, there's supposed languages between the West and Islamic State in the past, but, you know, I mean, the idea that this carried out solely by the Islamic State has a lot of weight to it, a lot of merit to it. I'm not going to disagree with that.

I'm also not going to discount the idea that there was involvement by the Ukrainian intelligence services here. Certainly, they have the motivation, they have the wherewithal, they have the resources to be involved in something like this, whether as a direct or indirect participant. And we've seen them already carry out acts like this in Russia, not as grand or as spectacular, but certainly a large number of assassinations, assassination attempts. What are they called? GRU? What are their initials? The GRU is the military intelligence. And I think that's where most people would point their fingers. But isn't the GRU a wholly owned subsidiary of MI6 and CIA? Correct. Correct. So the connection, the line that you could follow to the Americans and the British,

again, I don't think it's likely, but it possibly could be there. And here's the thing about, well, people would say, well, you know, the Americans or the British wouldn't be involved in something like this because if it ever got out, the consequences would be so great. But just go back and look at everything we're just talking about. What consequences? What consequences? If they were involved with something like this, and again, I'm not in the camp that believes that, but if they were, I'm also too, again, not going to discount it, but if they were involved in this, their conversation about it, their discussion about it would be, well, if it got found out,

the media is going to be on our side. The American, the British, the Western media are going to say what we want them to say. No one's going to believe us. And if anyone does, no one's going to believe that we did this. And if anyone does believe it, we'll never be held accountable. There'll be no consequences for this. So, I mean, certainly what we saw happen last Friday in Moscow was it was an awful, terrible act of terror. Again, the Islamic State, by all means, could have done it by themselves or there possibly could have been involvement by the Ukrainians. Certainly there's an argument for both of that. And we'll just have to wait and see. You know, I mean, the problem is going to be is whether or not what type of evidence the Russians put forward.

We saw the videos of the men that they caught, who obviously look like they've been tortured. So judges, you know, any confessions they get from them, you know, it's not going to be the most reliable thing out there. Certainly where this can go, though, in terms of escalation and the pressure put on Vladimir Putin to respond, not just against Ukraine, but if this was a sole Islamic state attack, there will be a great deal of pressure put on the Russian government to respond somehow. And that could mean Russia ramping up its operations in Syria or actually carrying out operations in Central Asia. Wow. Give us the two-minute version of your lecture on War and Peace, Fools and Madmen. Right. So I was- Only you could come up with it. It was beautiful. I read it. And for those who want to hear it, we have it posted. War, Peace, Fools, and Madmen by Matthew Ho.

Yeah. Thank you, Judge. And thank you for posting it and sharing it. I really appreciate that. And so I was offered the opportunity to brief the United Nations on the war in Ukraine. I chose to speak about the dangers of the escalation of that war, particularly the dangers of nuclear conflict. There's an escalatory trajectory of that war that has a risk that is much greater than anyone should should should accept. And so I spoke to the United Nations about their responsibility, the U.N. Security Council, particularly to intervene and to force negotiations, to force a ceasefire. I spoke harshly against the United States for its role, particularly its appalling diplomatic malpractice that led to this war.

I also spoke critically of Russia as well. And then I was able to end it by speaking of the need to abolish the Security Council permanent member veto, particularly in light of the last five months of the United States defying the world and utilizing its veto to protect Israel as Israel carries out its genocide. So the usual suspects, as you will, the Americans, the British, the French, the Maltese, Malta was probably the most aggressive pro-Ukraine war voice at that table. They didn't like what I had to say. The Russians, at least, were polite and mature about it. But the other members, China and the 10 non-permanent security

members, they were agreeable and they did listen. And I think what I said resonated with them in a way that they didn't know anything. I wasn't saying anything they didn't know already, but it was, I think, more grist for the mill, more fuel for the fire so that they understand their role in this war and how this war has very real dangers for all of us, not just for the people of Ukraine. Well done, Matt. You are brilliant and courageous, and I'm happy you're my friend and colleague. And I think I speak for everybody watching us now when I say that. So thank you again. Thanks for what you did last week. Thank you for coming here today. We look forward to next week and happy Easter to you and your family. Yes. Thank you,

Judge. And thank you. Yes. And happy Easter to you and yours as well. Thank you. Okay, coming up at three o'clock, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski on many of these very same unpleasant topics, but it's important that we analyze them for you, and the rest of your favorites coming up the rest of the week. Colonel McGregor, Professor Mearsheimer, Larry Johnson, and Ray McGovern. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.