Hi and welcome to the session. I am Neha and I am going to help you with the following question. The question says find the roots of the following quadratic equation if they exist by the method of completing the square. And the given equation is 2x square minus 7x plus 3 is equal to 0. Let's see its solution. We have given the equation 2x square minus 7x plus 3 is equal to 0. In this as we can see that the coefficient 2 of the term x square is not a perfect square. So to make it a perfect square we will multiply the whole equation by 2. So this will give us 4x square minus 14x plus 6 is equal to 0. Now we can write this equation as 2x whole square minus 2 into 2x into 7 upon 2 plus 6 equal to 0. Now here we have 2 into 2 that is 4x into 7 upon 2 that is 14x. Also we know that a minus b whole square is equal to a square minus 2ab plus b square. So if we compare the artist of this identity with the first two terms of the given expression then we can say that here a is 2x and b is 7 upon 2. So now to complete this whole square we just need b square. So we will add and subtract 7 upon 2 whole square to the given equation. And we will get 2x whole square minus 2 into 2x into 7 upon 2 plus 7 upon 2 whole square minus 7 upon 2 whole square plus 6 will be as it is equal to 0. Now from the first three terms we will get 2x minus 7 upon 2 whole square. Now the last two terms that is we can write them as plus minus 7 upon 2 whole square plus 6. Now let's on this one. This will be 2x minus 7 upon 2 whole square plus minus 49 upon 4 plus 6 upon 1 equal to 0. That is minus 7 upon 2 whole square plus minus 49 plus 24 upon 4 equal to 0. This gives 2x minus 7 upon 2 whole square plus minus 25 upon 4 equal to 0. This implies 2x minus 7 upon 2 whole square minus 25 upon 4 is equal to 0. Now let's transpose 25 upon 4 on the RHS. So we get minus 7 upon 2 whole square is equal to 25 upon 4. Now let's take square root on both the sides. So we'll write taking square root we get minus 7 upon 2 is equal to plus minus 5 upon 2. That means minus 7 upon 2 is equal to plus 5 upon 2 or minus 7 upon 2 is equal to minus 5 upon 2. Now we will solve both of these. So on solving the first one we will get 2x is equal to 5 upon 2 plus 7 upon 2. Which gives 2x is equal to 12 upon 2 that is 6. This implies x is equal to 6 upon 2 that is 3. Now we'll solve the second one. So this will give us 2x is equal to minus 5 upon 2 plus 7 upon 2 that is 2x is equal to minus 5 plus 7 upon 2 that is 2 upon 2 is equal to 1 is equal to 1 upon 2. So we got two values of x that is 1 upon 2 and 3. The rules of the given quadratic equation are 1 upon 2 and 3. And this is our required answer to this question. With this we've finished this session. Hope you must have understood the concept. Goodbye, take care and have a nice day.


I was there when this extradition treaty was reached. It was concluded behind the backs of Parliament during the summer recess, when no Member of Parliament could question the treaty which David Blunkett, Tony Blair's Home Secretary, corruptly and secretly concluded with the United States, a one-sided extradition treaty, the likes of which no free country would ever sign with any other country.   But when Parliament returned in the autumn, I bearded David Blunkett in the Members' Lobby and told them all the things that I thought were wrong and dangerous with this extradition treaty and he said to me, you're worrying unnecessarily because all of the points you're making are taken care of by Article 4.1 of the treaty which precludes the extradition of people in Britain for political offences to the United States. And now the judge is telling us that although that's on the face of the treaty, it does not apply. What madness is this? If we allow Julian Assange to be sent for the rest of his life, into the dungeons of the US injustice system, journalism, freedom, freedom of speech, democracy itself will have been murdered in plain sight on our watch. And that's why we are going to fight and fight and fight again to free Julian Assange, free Julian Assange. Get out your notebook, please. Welcome to C.N. Live, Episode 6. Sorry, Season 6, Episode 5, The Assange Dilemma for the United States. I'm Joe Laurier, Editor-in-Chief of Consortium News. And I'm Elizabeth Boss. The High Court's ruling on Tuesday in London has posed a dilemma for the Biden administration. It must provide written assurances to Britain that it will respect Julian Assange's First Amendment rights if it wants to have him extradited to the US as early as next month. Without that assurance, the High Court said it would allow Assange to appeal the Home Office's extradition order on three grounds related to his First Amendment rights and protection against the death penalty. If the US wants him now, it must promise to allow him those rights, otherwise it will have to battle it out in an appeals process that will drag on for at least another year or more. The Biden Department of Justice thus must weigh the pros and cons of delivering the assurances on the First Amendment and the death penalty by April 16 to have him extradited or missed the deadline and go through with fighting the appeal. Allowing Assange his First Amendment rights, which the US has threatened to deprive him of, could possibly become part of his defense at trial and perhaps set up a constitutional challenge of the Espionage Act, under which Assange is being charged and which clearly conflicts with protected speech. After the US lost the initial judgment in a lower court in January 2021, barring Assange's extradition based on his health and the conditions of US prisons, the court allowed the US to issue written assurances that it would not mistreat Assange in custody. These were conditional on Assange's behavior, however. Amnesty International said the assurances were not worth the paper they were written on. Nevertheless, the High Court accepted those assurances carte blanche without allowing Assange's lawyers to challenge their validity in court and overturned the ruling barring extradition. The UK Supreme Court then refused Assange's application to challenge the assurances and the case went to the Home Secretary who promptly signed the extradition order. Assange is now trying to appeal that order. His application for appeal will most likely be denied by the High Court if the US delivers on the assurances. It was the same High Court, though with different judges that accepted the US assurances without challenge the first time. One thing is different this time, however. The High Court on Tuesday ruled that Assange's lawyers will be able to challenge the credibility of US assurances in written submissions. The US would then have two weeks to respond in writing to those challenges. Though it might seem unlikely, given the bias shown towards the US by British judges so far in this case, there is an outside chance that the US assurances would be thrown out. Presuming that they aren't, Assange could then be on a plane to the US on May 20, the preliminary date for a hearing on this matter, barring a last minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights. So would it be better, would it better serve Biden's interest to miss the April 16 deadline for the assurances in order to keep Assange in Belmarsh a while longer, despite the risk that the US could lose on appeal? The last thing Biden needs in the midst of his reelection campaign is to have a journalist arrive on American shores in chains to stand trial outside Washington for publishing true information about US state crimes. Donald Trump, whose administration had Assange arrested and dited and thrown into Belmarsh, would most likely, hypocritically, make much out of Biden prosecuting a journalist. Trump would understand that some voters who support Assange might switch their support to him, and that his own base is made up of libertarians who support Assange's constitutional rights. So it might be very much in Biden's interest to miss the deadline for the assurances to prevent Assange from coming to the US before the election, even though the 66-page ruling by two High Court judges on Tuesday was in most ways favorable to the United States. For instance, the Court on Tuesday rejected outright the most substantive and significant points raised by Assange's barristers at a two-day hearing heard on February 20th and 21st. It rejected six grounds and all. The argument that the Home Secretary's extradition order was incompatible with the US-UK extradition treaty that bars extradition for political offenses. The High Court also rejected that Assange was being prosecuted for his political opinions in violation of the UK-US extradition Act. These two points would mean that Assange's revelations of US war crimes are now irrelevant to his case, as the Court does not find his case to be political. Significantly, Tuesday's ruling did not allow Assange to introduce new evidence in the case that came to light after the lower court ruling, namely that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he had had asylum before being arrested and thrown into Belmarsh prison where he continues to languish. In the middle of this came word last week from The Wall Street Journal that US prosecutors and Assange's lawyers have discussed the parameters of a possible plea deal, though it seems those talks have stalled. Constitutional lawyer Bruce Affron, who was one of our guests on today's show, last August told CN Live that Assange could plead guilty to mishandling classified information, a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of five years, which happens to be how long Julian Assange has served already in Belmarsh on remand, and that he could and should enter the pleas remotely from London and not go to the US to do it where the US could change its mind once he got there. Joining Bruce Affron on today's program is Marjorie Cohn, a law professor and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, Craig Murray, a former British ambassador was close to Julian Assange and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges. Welcome everybody and thanks for coming. Marjorie, let's start with you since we know you have to go to another meeting after this. Could you just first give me your your quick take on the ruling on Tuesday as you read it? Well, a difference here between this ruling and the last time that Elizabeth mentioned that the US provided assurances that Assange would be treated humanely if extra died to the United States is that these assurances, the High Court panel said, have to be satisfactory and so they would if the Biden administration came through with a with assurances then there would be a hearing and on whether they're satisfactory and the defense Assange's legal team would be able to challenge that. Now in terms of the three issues, do you want me to go through the three issues or do you want me to just? Yes, yes, yes. Okay, all right. I do want to say that the earlier stage when these assurances were provided by the US and they were accepted without an at face value by the High Court and the High Court reversed the denial of extradition that the lower court had ordered based on humane grounds. They didn't really deal with the fact that the US actually has a history of reneging on similar assurances. The US lies. They say, yes, we'll ensure humane treatment and this happened in a case with a person in Spain was extradited to the United States after US gave assurances and those assurances were violated. One of the things that the panel said in this recent decision is that there is an opportunity to challenge these assurances if the US comes forward with them, quote, Mr. Assange will not therefore be extradited immediately unquote. That implies to me that in the absence of that claim, then he would be extradited immediately. He would immediately be put on a plane. Briefly, the three grounds that Assange is allowed to raise on appeal, assuming that Biden doesn't come forward with assurances or those assurances are not satisfactory is, first of all, his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights would be violated because he would be denied to the ability to raise the First Amendment in his trial. And they, the panel said the First Amendment is very similar to Article 10 of the European Convention. Gordon Cromberg, who is a prosecutor who would be prosecuting Assange if he were extradited, said that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections of the First Amendment. Mike Pompeo, former CIA director, said that Assange has no First Amendment freedoms because he's not a US citizen and the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that foreign citizens outside the US territory don't possess rights under the Constitution. But let's assume that the US, that Biden, the Biden administration does give assurances that his, he would be able to raise the First Amendment and that the court found that those were significant assurances. That really doesn't mean anything because one of the things that the British courts don't understand is the US doctrine of separation of powers. I mean, we're just dealing here with the executive branch. The prosecutors can give all the assurances they want, but the judiciary, another one of these three branches of government in the US, doesn't have to abide by the executive branch claim or assurance. So, and one of the things that the high courts, the panel on the high court said is that Assange would argue at trial that his actions are protected by the First Amendment, quote, he contends that if he's given the First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defense. And so that's why they are giving Assange another shot at possibly raising this issue on appeal, the First Amendment issue. Then the second issue, the UK Extradition Act forbids discrimination based on nationality. Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. If he's extradited to the US, he would be tried in US courts. And the Extradition Act bars extradition if an individual might be prejudiced due to his nationality and due to the centrality of the First Amendment to his defense. The panel noted if he's not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he'll thereby be prejudiced potentially very greatly prejudiced by reason of his nationality. That's the second issue. The third issue is that there are inadequate safeguards or assurances that he wouldn't be sentenced to death if he was sent to the US. The UK Extradition Act says that the Secretary of State, this is in the UK, must not order a person's extradition if he could be, will be, or has been sentenced to death unless there's a written assurance that's adequate that says that a sentence of death either will not be imposed or will not be carried out if imposed. Now, none of the charges that Julian Assange is facing right now carry the death penalty, but he could be extradited to the US and then charged with aiding and abetting treason or espionage both of which carry the death penalty. And Ben Watson, KC, who's the Secretary of State for the UK Home Department, admitted the facts alleged against Assange could sustain a charge of aiding or abetting treason or espionage. And that if he's extradited, there's nothing to prevent a charge of aiding or abetting treason or a charge of espionage from being added to the indictment. And the death penalty is available for those two crimes. Now, Donald Trump, you know, it's hard to know what he's going to say at any given time. But when he was asked, when he was before he became president about WikiLeaks leaking the documents, he said, this is Donald Trump, quote, I think it was disgraceful. I think there should be a death penalty or something unquote. Now, the president of the United States is not supposed to control the Department of Justice. They're supposed to be independent. But Donald Trump doesn't follow those rules. And so he could, if Julian Assange is extradited, if Trump is elected president, he could prevail upon the Justice Department to add one of those charges that would make him eligible for the death penalty, regardless of any assurances that the Biden Justice Department gives. And so there is a possibility that, and Joe kind of alluded to this in a different way, that instead of filing assurances, the Biden administration will opt to avoid the political pitfalls of Assange being extradited to the U.S. before the election and actually offer a plea bargain with credit for time served to end the case. Right. So before we move on to Craig, thank you for that. I want to ask you what are the standards that the court, these two judges will use to judge whether these assurances are satisfactory. I should note that it's very significant that these judges are at least giving Assange's lawyers the right to challenge the validity and the credibility of the assurance, which they were not given that right the first time when the high court accepted those assurances, as you say, carte blanche. What are the standards that the, obviously they're going to look at the language, the language in those other assurances was very conditional. What will they be looking for, Marjorie? Well, this whole idea of what significant assurances are, what is significant, I mean, is very subjective. And there's really, I don't think there's any clear standard, clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt or anything like that that I know of. And so it's really going to come down to the subjective views of the high court judges at that hearing, assuming Biden presents any assurances about whether or not those assurances are satisfactory. And I hope and suspect and am pretty confident that the Assange defense will argue that there is a separation of powers doctrine in the United States, which means that regardless of what assurances the executive branch through the Department of Justice, the prosecutors provide, whether they are significant or not are not worth the paper that they're written on because the judiciary, a separate branch of government can overrule them. The Marjorie, but I know you have to go, so I'm going to ask you one more before we move on to Craig. How reluctant do you think the Biden DOJ will be to allow the First Amendment rights to Julian Assange? How crucial would that be in his defense and would it also possibly set up a challenge of the constitutionality of the Espionage Act? Because this seems very significant that they are demanding that the U.S. promise that they allow him these First Amendment rights. They could certainly at trial, if it goes to Alexander, could say that use that, can't his lawyers, Assange's lawyers use that? Yes, certainly the First Amendment goes to the heart of Julian Assange's defense. If he has a right to free expression and freedom of speech, then what he did would what he what he's accused of doing would not violate the law. So it's very central to his defense as the High Court panel noted. And for that reason, it's probably likely that the prosecution is going to argue, consistent with what the Supreme Court has said, that foreign nationals don't have a constitutional rights. So I think that that is really a critical argument. And I think you're right, Joe. I think it very likely could set up a challenge to the Espionage Act, that it's unconstitutional. Sorry, they won't get him if they don't promise that he's has those rights, though. I mean, this is. But again, they can promise anything they want. And that doesn't mean they won't go back on it. They won't renew on it. Okay. All right. I was afraid you were going to say that. Craig, can you weigh in on this, your general thoughts, and then respond to anything that we said in our opening and to Marjorie? The first significant point is that it's not true that they won't necessarily get him unless they provide the significant assurances because there's another phase. What the court has said is that he has the right to appeal on these points unless assurances are received. If those assurances are received, his right to appeal falls and is extradited. If the court considers the assurances sufficient. If the assurances are not sufficient, it doesn't mean he's not extradited. It means he has a right to appeal those points. Right. There's been a hearing substantively on those points, and whether they're strong enough to prevent the extradition. So it's perfectly possible, for example, that on his right to rely on the First Amendment, that the assurances as to no discrimination by nationality are not satisfactory. Therefore, he's allowed to appeal on that point. But it was substantive hearing at that point. They come to a decision that wasn't a strong enough point to stop the entire extradition. So the assurances could fail and he could still be extradited. And I think it's very important to realise that. And I can actually see that happening. I can see the prosecution arguing that, well, no, we can't because it's up to the judge. We cannot give firm assurance. We can assure, for example, the prosecution won't raise the point. But that still doesn't mean the judge isn't going to follow that supreme's court decision in USA versus open society and rule he doesn't have those rights. But we can promise the prosecution won't trust it. But we can't bind the judge. But we are a democracy where the United States, the United Kingdom's ally, we're a category two power under the extradition act of a safe place to go. We believe in a rule of law. You can safely lead this to the judge. The judge will give it a fair hearing, the fair decision. And the court may say, yeah, that's okay. But it's not any definite discrimination by nationality here. Or they could argue it's not discrimination by nationality as such. Every country treats non-citizens and citizens in a different way when outside the country as regards consular detection and all kinds of things. So this is not an unusual discrimination by nationality. All kinds of arguments they can put forward, which frankly aren't very strong, but which the court had decided to accept even in the absence of assurances. And given some of the crazy things they've accepted so far, like the idea that the no political offenses, the idea that the no political offenses bar in the treaty doesn't apply because it's not been incorporated into UK domestic law, for example. I wouldn't put it at all past them to stretch to saying, okay, they couldn't provide that assurance, but nonetheless the appeal doesn't succeed on that point once it's actually heard in the substantive hearing on the 20th of May. I think it's actually very surprising that no assurance has been given on the death penalty because that's absolutely routine. It happens in loads of expeditions. It's normal. It's a template. It's taken two minutes to do it. They're used to doing that. And there's no reason not to give it bluntly. They actually don't want to execute Julian.  So they could easily give that assurance. And in fact, they haven't given that assurance. I think there's strong evidence that I think there's strong evidence that they are trying to just spin it out until after the election. But the assurance on the death penalty is different. The assurance, I said they could not give a satisfactory assurance against nationality by discrimination. But the court could then still rule that isn't actually nationality by discrimination and still let him be extradited. Assurance on the death penalty is in a different category. You absolutely cannot extradite without assurance on the death penalty. So they have to give that one. And they will give it by the deadline. They'll go right up to the deadline, but they will give it on the deadline. I'm sure that one will be given. And one last point, and I could talk for hours, but there are many people to talk. One last point is the significance of saying that the treaty provision against political offences does not apply. Because the judgment makes it absolutely plain that that applies to all the 156 extradition treaties which the UK has, which bar extradition for political offence. So what they're saying is, you know, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, you have dissidents here, come and get them because we are not going to apply the no political offence extradition for extradition provision of any of those treaties. And the ramifications of that, you know, are many of the horrible ramifications for freedom in this case as a whole. Thank you. We'll come back to you, Craig. Chris Hedges. Well, I think we have to remember that the extradition request was only pushed forward after the exposure of the vault seven documents which expose the CIA's ability to hack into our phones, computers, cars and use them as listening, recording devices, even when they're turned off. And so I think it's very probable that if, and of course, this is not part of the extradition request, but I think it's very probable that if he is extradited those charges will be added to the indictment. So the engine behind this is clearly the CIA and they have a vested interest in seeing that Julian is punished for this security breach. That's when you got the statements by then CIA Director Mike Pompeo that WikiLeaks is a hostile intelligence agency. I'm mauling the quote a little bit. But, and we have to remember that that's the engine driving this. It's not coming out of the Biden White House. Of course, it was Trump who demanded the extradition. It is really coming out of the CIA. And I think much of what happens to Julian is going to be colored by the character of the CIA. The CIA is in essence not an intelligence gathering agency. It's a paramilitary force. That's primarily what it does. That's why they discussed assassinating or kidnapping Julian because that's what they do. That's what they know how to do. That's what they do all over the globe. And I think that that factor is very important because that, you know, the CIA is not crossed by any elected official. Diane Feinstein tried to do that. And it didn't when this was on the torture because they're running black sites and we're torturing. And I'll always remember that press conference where she walked out very ashen and they had like tapped into our computers. And I mean, they sabotaged the entire investigation. And Feinstein, who's no flaming liberal, frankly, was appalled that and said, you know, you can't remember the exact words, but it was something like you cannot cross these people. So this is an extremely important factor in what's happening to Julian. And I think that we can be very sure that the impetus behind the extradition and the the demands for extradition supersede the Democratic Party and come out of the intelligence agency. And there's no question that if extradited, he will be hit with those charges for Vol 7, which right now are not part of the indictment. So that that, you know, makes me very pessimistic about Julian's chances because I think the CIA is determined to make him pay as a kind of example. And so we're not really talking about the Iraqi war logs anymore. We're not talking about the Bedesta emails. We're talking about something in the eyes of, you know, the the the power, especially the deep state power, something far, far, far more serious. And and that's why I, you know, is it is it advantageous for Biden to keep him locked up in Belmarsh, of course. But I don't think it's I don't think Biden's driving this. Why do you think they didn't put that into that show? Yes. Yes. In 2017, it wasn't just the CIA, Donald Trump himself personally asked for options to kidnap and or kill Julian Assange. So Chris, why didn't Donald Trump's administration in 2017, 2018, when they indicted Julian Assange for the war crimes he that WikiLeaks exposed in 2010, 2011, why didn't they include those vault seven charges then? I mean, that's a that's a good question. I and I which of course I can't answer, why didn't they include them? I don't I don't think they needed them. They they they already had a kind of process in place by which they could charge him. I think I think there's no question that if he was extradited, the exposure of vault seven would be added. I just don't see how that's but why they didn't do it probably because they didn't need to. I wonder do they the Espionage Act does carry a death penalty in time of war? Isn't that correct? Or am I wrong there? Yes, it does. So I don't know why would the could Marjorie said earlier you'd have to have other charges. I think it was Marjorie that we have to have other charges added. He's not charged with espionage per se. He's charged with offenses under the espionage. But he's not charged with espionage. If he was charged with espionage, then it would carry the death penalty. I see. Okay, Bruce Affron. Bruce was a way ahead of the game on this plea of deal. And he told us back in August last year that a drilling could plead guilty to mishandling official information or classified information. That's a five year maximum term. And he's already served those five years in Belmarsh. And he also said that, what did he say? He said that he could remotely do this plea from here in London rather than going back to the US where the US could change their mind. So Bruce, I want you first, if you want to weigh in on what we've been discussing, your reading, because you read the 66 page ruling. What is your overall assessment? Then I want to talk to you about the plea deal because you were ahead of the game there. Sure. Thanks Joe. I think the decision was very predictable once the US representative conceded that they can't control the death penalty in this case. Obviously, UK law bars extradition if the death penalty is available. And it was a rather extraordinary thing for the US representative to say, well, if the Trump administration comes into office, they may seek the death penalty based on new charges, similar to what Chris is alluding to. And to me, that was an extraordinary concession, probably unnecessary because it's somewhat speculative. And I read it as the Biden administration trying to get a denial of extradition to get off the hook, so to speak. Australia is pushing heavily for Julian to be sent back home. Australia is a critical US defense ally. And I'm reading it a little differently. I'm reading it that that concession was made to set up the basis for a denial by the court in the UK. Because clearly, if the death penalty is available, there can be no extradition. And it looks to me, and the decision was very predictable once that concession was made. So I see it as the US is trying to kind of get out of a difficult position by making the very concession that would block extradition. With respect to it, first of all, there's no way anyone can guarantee there won't be a death penalty sought. Clearly, a future Justice Department could do that. By the time Julian were actually extradited, processed, given pretrial proceedings, there's still plenty of time for a Trump administration to do just that, seek the death penalty on new charges. So there's no way to guarantee against it. I think that concession was right. I think it was also offered to have a legal way out of this problem. With regard to the First Amendment, I think, as Marjorie said, the whole concept of an assurance ignores the separation of powers. That's very correct. Clearly, no administration representative, whether it's a UK lawyer or an American lawyer, can say that a court is going to respect First Amendment defenses in charges of this nature. It's up to the court to make that decision. We're in a very novel area of law. Journalists have never been prosecuted before for this type of issue. Julian certainly falls arguably in the category of a journalist, so does WikiLeaks. There's no way to predict whether First Amendment defenses will be allowed. The court itself made the point that on its face anyway, he's not being prosecuted in the US for speech violations, but rather for the taking of data illegally or information illegally. Right there, there's an issue, will the First Amendment ever be respected in this case? There's absolutely no way, any assurance, let alone what the court wants, a significant assurance can be given. No administration can guarantee that. We're in a field of law never explored before in the US, and there's absolutely no way one can argue that the First Amendment defense will be allowed. Forgetting entirely whether a foreign national can assert those rights. If Julian's actions occurred outside the US, there is an argument that the First Amendment wouldn't have applied in the first place. However, part of Julian's actions occurred while he was in the US, and the First Amendment logically should apply no matter what. But there's no way to guarantee what a court will say in an unusual situation like this. Dan Ellsberg was prosecuted for similar offenses, but not the New York Times, not the Washington Post. So we have no knowledge based on any precedent whether the First Amendment will be respected. So my gut feeling is, in May, there's going to be no capacity to give a significant assurance on either ground. Actually, Nixon administration impaneled the grand jury in Boston to indict Neil Sheehan and the other Times reporters, and it fell through because they discovered, it was discovered that the FBI had wiretapped Ellsberg's phone, so the reporters came forward and said, wait a minute, we were talking on the phone, so you were wiretapping us too. That's how that collapsed. So there have been attempts, including by FDR during the Second World War of the Chicago Tribune, published some cables that Japan had, that unencrypted cables from Japan on the midway incident. So, but this is the first successful prosecution. Given what you said, there's no case law allowing it. No, it didn't happen. Right. There was no indictment. They tried, but this is the first time someone's been indictment. Given what you said about the US trying to get Biden or the US administration trying to get out of this, what does that say about a possible police still being a valid possibility in the middle of all of this with the High Court? Because that's still happened. Right. Well, let me just say this. Obviously, what I'm saying differs somewhat from what Chris was saying because it suggests that there's an intelligence community imperative at work. There could be, but I think there's also a political diplomatic imperative at work in which the administration is trying to get out of that vice. The intelligence community wants this. I think the administration is looking for a way around it, and that's where they gave these concessions in the court in Britain. With regard to a plea, Julian is not really a fugitive. He was in the US. He announced what he was doing. He stuck around for a while. Nobody launched charges against him, and he left. He's not an American. He has no duty to come back. So, he doesn't really meet the standard of being a fugitive. So, that's not going to bar a remote plea. It's a concept no one's really paid attention to. Julian has the ability to do a remote plea, and it is absolutely permitted by the rules, not usually done, but he can do it. A conspiracy to mishandle or aid in the mishandling of protected information carries a five-year term. He's already served five years. The plea can be entered, time served can be represented, and he goes off to Australia. I assume the Brits don't want him there anymore, so I think he'd be going to Australia. There's absolutely nothing barring that plea, and it would make sense. It would at least achieve the legal message the government wanted, or at least the Trump administration wanted, and it would get the US out of a difficult diplomatic and political problem. I got to point out, if Julian is prosecuted, it creates a storm under the Constitution, and it's uncontrollable and no one knows where it will go. So, I think the government has every incentive to try to set it up so that there is pressure to do a plea and likely lose the extradition hearing at the same time. He would have to plead to a conspiracy to mishandle classified material with Chelsea Manning. That's one charge. He could plead to aiding and abetting someone else to do that. You don't need the conspiracy charge necessarily. But all of that would carry prison time equal to what he served, and there's a very simple solution. He's already served five years in prison. Let's not forget that, that all we need is the conviction. Since I think a judge is not likely to give him more time than that anyway, this is a solution that should satisfy everyone. And I have to agree, Julian should not come back to the US. Our prison system cannot be trusted to behave gently in this situation. Let me just— Let me just— Jonathan Pollard's experience, for example, was rough, and Julian will be in the same category. I just want to make one point, and I think Joe would back this up, is that that posits that the decision by the prosecution not to offer those guarantees was intentional. And I think one of the things that struck Joe Craig, myself, who sat through the two days of hearings was how amateurish and ill-informed and sloppy the prosecution was. In fact, at one point, they were simply reading. And after David by Gordon Cromberg from 2020, making all sorts of accusations, they'd already been disproved. So it does come down to intent. And I'm not a hundred percent like Joe and Craig, because they were both there. I didn't walk away that the prosecution, after listening to them for two full days, completely knew what they were doing. Well, the absence of James Lewis— Sorry, I just thought Bruce wanted— the absence of James Lewis, a far more experienced prosecutor, really did show up. Sorry, Bruce. Well, I wasn't there, obviously. I don't have that insight on it. But just reading the reports afterwards, I was struck as a lawyer by that concession. It's the one thing that would guarantee the inability of the British court to do this. And by the way, the British probably don't want to tick off the Australians too much either. So it almost, to my mind, maybe amateurism is the answer. They were not looking to forcefully defend their case. That's just how I read it as an observer who saw the reports on that concession. It struck me as a lawyer that way, that you don't make that admission unless you're trying to get out of the problem. Yeah, I think on the diplomatic assurances, you've got to remember that there's nothing you feel like special about the case of Julian Assange in this sense, that if you're saying, well, the administration can't guarantee the behavior of any future administration, well, that's true in any case. And if you're saying we can't guarantee the behavior of the courts, that's true in any case. And the United States regularly gives guarantees against the death sentence and to the UK and to other European powers, because almost all of Europe, it has to give that kind of guarantee before it can extradite any serious criminal. So it's never stopped them before, and it would stop all of them. You know, the point you make would stop them ever doing it again and ever being able to extradite a serious criminal from the US against. So they're not going to stick with that. There will be a guarantee against the death penalty. I'm sure it will come in at the last minute. I could be wrong, we will see. But and the other thing point I want to make is this the diplomatic assurances thing that there's a big legal literature on it. If you if Google the weight of diplomatic assurances in the UK in particular, there's a big legal literature on and again, it's not only the United States, the United Kingdom receives diplomatic assurances that it won't mistreat people from Saudi Arabia and from Jordan and from all kinds of countries where everybody knows that this is nonsense. And these have no weight whatsoever, but they are accepted because otherwise we never be able to extradite anyone. That's the way the courts look at it. And the and they actually say it was stated in court and stated by the judges. And I believe it's stated in this judgment. It was certainly stated in Beretser's judgment that the extradite that assurances by the extraditing country must be taken in good faith, that the good faith of the state with which you have an extradition treaty has to be the fundamental assumption. And that's it was early asked how the court will deal with it and and the court will give any balance of doubt it can to to the United States. And I say it's a worldwide thing. I mean, there are literally hundreds of examples of state that there's an awful one in Jordan where they gave assurances they wouldn't mistreat someone and then they tortured them to death. It's a regular problem. And everyone knows these assurances are meaningless, but they are nonetheless a very controversial fiction in in in in our legal system of which the courts are very fond and they're not going to be abandoned in this case. I think I think I'd agree with that. But on the first amendment issue, I don't see how any assurance could possibly be given as a matter of law in the US. There's no way to say a court will accept such defenses. Because on its face, the law doesn't recognize the First Amendment defenses. And so I think you're right, the diplomatic assurances are routinely given. But here, the assurance of an actual defense under the Constitution, I don't think could be given. But to Craig's point, that's absolutely right. They always say the death penalty won't be given. And that's why it struck me as so incredible that they said we can't guarantee it this time. And then that's why I took the position I did that normally they do say that all of a sudden they can't. It seems to me they're they're setting it up for a fall, so to speak. And that solves an immense problem for everybody. Elizabeth, you have some questions, I believe. Sure. Yeah, Chris, I liked your article and especially your point you made earlier about the CIA being the engine behind this persecution of Assange. And I just wanted to ask you to comment on the judges prohibiting the submission of new evidence relating to the CIA's plan to kidnap or assassinate Assange after they had already spied on private meetings with his lawyers, his doctors, and practically everyone who visited him. Well, they dismissed it because it was journalism. It wasn't like they had an internal document. And, you know, what they those three points that they have allowed him to pursue are all technicalities, fairly minor technicalities. I mean, I just and I, you know, Craig and Joe were also in the court. But I read the response on the part of the prosecution as not willful. But they didn't know because remember the judges kept pressing them more than once on both the First Amendment issue and on the death penalty. And there was one point where one of the prosecutors and remember, she just went off in this kind of long, almost incomprehensible diatribe. And I think they didn't know. I don't I don't think it was intentional. You were both in the courtroom. I don't know what you think. I couldn't tell I just couldn't go. Craig, I'd be interested to know what Craig asked to say. I was a bit surprised about her reading the Cromberg affidavit on and on, like I had nothing better to say. And on the death penalty, it was pretty extraordinary when Watson, the lawyer for the Home Secretary, actually admitted that they'd never asked the US for the assurance what they're supposed to do. They never made a request for this assurance. And I was flabbergasted by that. I don't know the explanation except maybe the one that Bruce is offering. I was surprised that the prosecution seemed very weak. Dominion in particular seemed extremely weak, whether she'd actually seemed, although she was the number two, she'd seen very, very strong and forceful in Neil Bailey and the extradition hearings. And I found it peculiar. And I felt she'd lost belief in her own case, which came over to me. But they could tell they were doing badly and they were doing particularly badly. And I I can prove this because I wrote it and published it. But I could tell what this judgment was going to be. It was obvious from the judge's questions. And this judgment was exactly what what I predicted it would be, that they would be allowed to leave to appeal on these two points only. And that came over because the prosecution really made made no effort to answer. But there's one important point we haven't touched on, I think, and that's the they did take the Yahoo news stuff quite quite seriously because the standard, I think Mark Summers argued successfully that the standard of proof required in an extradition hearing is like the standard of proof in an asylum claim. You're not looking not looking for sort of criminal standard of proof that the evidence is true. You're looking for a balance of probability that has this person proven a fear of persecution. And so they accepted in, if you like, the basic truths in the Yahoo news report. But then they came to this astonishing conclusion, which I think will go down in British legal history with a paragraph that says that it may well be that the UK, that the United States was planning to kidnap or assassinate Julian Assange. But if we extradite him, they won't need to kidnap or assassinate him, and therefore it is okay, which has a piece of legal reasoning. This person was trying to kidnap you, but if we give you to them, then they won't need to kidnap you, therefore it's fine. It was absolutely breathtaking. It really is a paragraph I had to read four or five times in order to believe it said what it did say. Paragraph 210 of the 66 page document. It is an unbelievable statement. Elizabeth, I re-interrupted. Go ahead. Marjorie, I believe, has just let us. But yeah, and I think that is an amazing, amazing paragraph. And also I wonder, Chris, you're mentioning as well that regarding the CIA's attempt to extra-judicially attack Assange, what would prevent the US, basically the deep state going after Assange if he did go back to Australia? If he was set free, how could he ever really be safe? I doubt the intelligence community would allow him to ever publish anything, speak out ever again. I can't imagine that they would allow that. No. I mean, look, I had to cover the CIA as a foreign reporter. I watched them work in places like El Salvador and it's murder Inc. These are really, they recruit now primarily out of the special forces. 60,000 members of the US military are part of the special forces, seals, rangers, etc. They function really frankly as death squads. I mean, that's, you have to remember the character of the people who are driving this extradition. And it's not Biden or the Democrats. I agree with what Bruce and everyone has said, that Biden doesn't want it. I mean, they'd have to really be out of their minds at this point, given how precarious their political situation is. But the power of the CIA is such that it is really unaccountable. It is a state within a state. And I think it's very clear that they are determined to make Julian pay. And the best way is to make him pay is to, I think as Craig said, entomb him in Florence for the rest of his life. And I guess I'm just more pessimistic about where we're headed than others. And I really read the court refusal to give those guarantees. And I, of course, a lot of it was the in the inflection of their voice that they didn't know. They weren't prepared to give those guarantees. And both of the lawyers were not very competent. And they just were on the spot. And the judges, of course, pressed them. But they didn't have instructions as to whether those guarantees could be provided. And so that's how I read it. They didn't provide them.  The most important issue in these cases is the death penalty. I mean, this is the, in English law, anyway, this is the starting point of the analysis frequently. I mean, if the death penalty is available, there can be no extradition. No one could be ignorant of that. So it's shock strikes me that any competent attorney would have made that inquiry and been prepared. So that's why I think in a sense it's almost a setup because it's just so shocking that nobody would make that inquiry. It's almost as if, and they went further than that. They said, well, the Trump administration could impose those charges with the death penalty. So they went further than saying they don't know. They went out of their way to say it could happen. And I just can't believe any competent attorney would not have prepared on that one point. It's a major issue in extradition. And so, at least from England and the UK, rather. So it just strikes me as something that was almost set up. And you see this sometimes in cases where the government wants to get out of a prosecution and it does things that will let that happen. And everyone kind of goes away. So it's hard to know exactly, you know, Chris is right about the intelligence community's influence. But this might be one way the administration has a fighting back, you know, setting this up as a way of countering the impact, the influence of the intelligence community and saying, well, it's not awful, the court won't extradite. So it could be a way of getting around that influence. I don't know if I would blame the lawyer because it was the home secretary who did not ask for these assurances. And I think that's that's where the authority rests in that question. But let me raise this to Bruce, the last lawyer standing here. What charge could he get? As Chris said, when he gets to the US, he could have another charge. He was alluded to Vault 7. But where's the death penalty in the Vault 7 leaks? What crime would he have to be charged with in the US to get the death penalty? Remember the government, well, that's that's with the charge. But remember the government's contention is that by disclosing this information, he allowed states hostile to the US, and it would endanger American defenses to have information that could achieve that. And that's all that it takes to get the death penalty. It's important to realize that. And so they conceivably could charge him. They can pick any number of discharges of information they haven't charged yet and charge it in that way, or they can even seek to amend the existing indictment. The obligation to hold back on the death penalty does not arise until after the arraignment. So they're not even obligated on the US law to at this point make a statement on the death penalty. It doesn't even arise yet. And so there's all sorts of opportunities still for that to happen. And it's more than just a theory, though obviously no one's going to execute Julian, but it's a fact that could happen. And so it's available as a way for the court to deny extradition. And I'll just stress again, I don't see how anyone can give assurances on the First Amendment defense. And there is, by the way, a strain in US law that says the First Amendment does not apply outside the US to persons or actions outside the US. And that's another, and that they could be argued that much of Julian's actions took place outside the US. And therefore he might not be subject to that defense. So there's a lot of room here for the court to have to deny later or allow further appeal. Now, if you remember when you read the the 66 page ruling, there's an interesting admission by the two judges that they admit that he acted in a political way, that I was protected political act, that he exposed criminality, but that he was never charged. And none of the leaks had to do with a US war crime had to do with this mostly about the informants being put at risk, which we know is a lot of rubbish. If you know the whole story, we've gone over it so many times. But I think it's interesting that the judges admitted that he was acting politically, but you have to put the that part of the treaty or the act doesn't apply. And also that we're not getting him for war crime, the US is charged him with something else. So they're not even denying that there were war crimes there. I found that interesting. I don't know if anybody wants to weigh in on that. Can I come in on that and say that there's an interesting non sequitur as well in the argument, because what they state is that he's being he's only being charged with those publications which contained the name of informants, he is not being charged with any of the publications which exposed criminal wrongdoing by the United States. And the idea you can remove a sort of holistic view of, you know, the generality of what was being published and what it exposed and pick out little elements of that and saying there the bits is being charged with it. That's one thing. But the second thing is it's a complete non sequitur, because the argument only works if none of the documents which named names contained evidence of criminality. They're talking as though those are two entirely separate things that the documents that named names contain no evidence of criminality. And the evidence of criminality is all in the documents that didn't name names, was in fact, that's not true at all. There's plenty of evidence of criminality in the documents that named names. So they made this completely false distinction between the two sets of documents. Well, I'm not only one set of documents anyway, but they're claiming that there's no criminality in the documents that name names. I think the court has another false distinction also between this idea of political opinion and political offense. I mean, the court acknowledges is an overlap, as it says. But we're parsing nuances here. And I think what Parliament did was it got rid of the political offense provision, because political opinions is broader and embraces more activity. I don't think they meant to say it's one versus the other. And this distinction, I mean, the reason one is persecuted for opinion is because that opinion is offending in some fashion. So there's really no real way to justify distinguishing between these two. So in terms of what Craig was saying about, you know, there's really no distinction there, I think there's another area in which the courts looking at a real fiction, this notion that there's somehow a difference between opinion and offense, political opinion and political offense. And, you know, it's interesting, I think they would, they didn't prosecute any newspaper. They're prosecuting Julian because he was so effective in drawing attention to these things, to that criminality, Craig, as you're putting it. And I think that's where it's a political prosecution. And I'm very glad that they pushed on this, you know, in the final argument recently, because it wasn't pressed earlier that much. And it clearly, Julian's the lightning rod that annoys, as Chris Hedges said, the government, the intelligence community, they're going after Julian because he represents something and they're not going after New York Times or any of the others have published it. So I, you know, it seems to me that it is a political prosecution one way or the other. And this distinction between offenses and opinions is very narrow and shouldn't even be existing. Don't forget, Bruce, the New York Times is very useful to the CIA and the other intelligence community. They're constantly leaking their own stuff to the New York Times. So I don't think they want to alienate the New York Times. Well, they never did, you know, they never wanted to prosecute them in the first place in the Pentagon Papers case. But Julian is principled about this and he, he's not going to help to see how he liked the New York Times does. Again, just to add to Bruce's point as well, the obviously Assange wasn't the first to publish those names either. I mean, we can go over it again, but I found it really infuriating reading the judgment the way that the judges basically stated as fact. They implied heavily that he was the only one and that's why he was being prosecuted, etc. So, right. Very good point, Elizabeth. He was not the only one. He was not the first one. As we know, John Young from Cryptom.com, he asked the Department of Justice to indict him because he published exact same materials before Julian did. And he didn't redact any of the names, any of them, if I recall, and they didn't go after him. So that's a good point. Yeah. By the way, that brings up selective prosecution and, you know, why just one and not the others?  That's okay. But there's another interesting point that struck me in the judgment where they talk of, where they're relating what, what events happened, not what events allegedly happened. They're not saying these are allegations. They're saying this is what happened and this is why the charges are legitimate. And they state that Julian Assange in a chat log, I'm not sure whether chat log is a correct description, but that's the description. They were in a chat log with Chelsea Manning exchanged messages, blah, blah, blah. But they say he did that. Not that he was alleged to do that. And as far as I'm aware, it has never been admitted that it was Julian Assange on the end of the chat log. And I understand there are several possibilities within WikiLeaks as to who it might have been, even if it's admitted it was WikiLeaks. But they state as fact things which have not been proven as fact in the court of law and which are disputed by the defense. And that struck me as very strange. Yeah, Chelsea Manning has never said that Daniel Frank was Assange, as far as I know. That was the name of the judge. Right. We don't know that. And that's one of the things to be proven if there's a trial. But I would defend the court at this point though, because for purposes of extradition, they have to assume these things happened because they're charged. So I think that's why the court speaks that way. I don't think the court is speaking that way to make a pre-judgment. I think they have to. They have to accept that these things happened and they're being charged. I think they have to do that in extradition. So I would say they're probably not prejudging the facts. They just have no choice. They have to assume those facts are true for this purpose. It's a bit of a fiction, but it does look like they're prejudging though. I have to agree with Craig. But I think that's a legalistic reason why they're doing that. Well, if there's anything anyone else would like to add, this is the time to do it. Appreciate you all. I wish I was there in the courtroom with you all. Sorry, you wish you were. I didn't realize that it must have been amazing to see. It was an extraordinary thing to be inside there and to witness. I think, Craig, you said somewhere else that another webcast that you had a kind of grudging respect for James Lewis, who was the prosecutor in the extradition phase in the first lower court, and do you think they missed him being there? And why wasn't he there? Do you have any idea? No, I found that very strange that he, because the courts go out of their way to schedule hearings so that the lead QCs can be there. They very seldom hold a hearing on a date which one of the lead QCs can't make. And the fact that they didn't then put up another top lawyer to replace him, but just led with the second as such a key hearing, seemed to me very peculiar. I mean, really quite strange. It's very hard for us who are activists to understand that you have lawyers who do their job and they could equally well be on the other side. I mean, Mark Summers, who seemed so very vague, who was so very passionate in his arguments, he acts for the government in extradition cases as well. So that profession is peculiar to those of us who are activists and understanding that is sometimes emotionally, is sometimes a little hard for us to process. But I thought with James Lewis, I could see that. I could see he was actually a perfectly decent person doing an unpleasant job, if you like. And I thought he actually did it extremely well. You can tell he's a very, very good, very proficient lawyer. It's a unique feature of the British system where the lawyers can be on opposite sides every day and be a prosecutor one day, a defense another. It can't happen in the US. It's illegal. We don't allow it.  You do one or the other in your career at a given time. Otherwise, we call it conflict. But in Britain, it happens all the time. You can be in the same chambers and be against each other. And it happens all the time. It's something Americans have trouble figuring out as well. So it's not just people in the UK. A lot of people here can't get that either. In a way, it makes their system better because there's a certain ethic in arguing a case for its own sake and not being committed to a cause as a lawyer. Greg, I was wondering if I could ask you one last question, because you seem to have a very good knowledge of the difference between the act and the treaty, the Spanish, the extradition act and the tradition treaty. Apparently, it talks about, the act talks about returning someone to the requesting country. And Assange is not being returned. And the act says that it applies to UK citizens and he's not a UK citizen. So shouldn't the international treaty prevail instead? This comes from Kati Vogan, our producer, who wrote me this question. The extradition act, I think, talks of returning someone to the country because, of course, normally they're being extradited for a crime which has occurred in that country. Whereas here, you're sending someone to be extradited under a claim of universal jurisdiction, which is a different thing. I must confess, I haven't read, and the UK Exhibition Act definitely applies to non-UK citizens. So that's for sure. I haven't read the point on returning. I haven't looked at the language of it. That point hasn't struck me. That would be why, because normally you are returning someone to where the crime was committed in the next tradition. The act, the treaty depends on the act, if you see what I mean, but the treaty is an enabling act which then is an enabling, sorry, the act is an enabling act which enables the government then to enter treaties to put it into force, which again makes the argument that there's a conflict between the two all the more strange, particularly as the act was passed in 2003 and the treaty in 2007 and would have been drafted by exactly the same lawyers. Physically, the same people would have drafted the two things. So the idea that the, as Bruce was saying, the idea that the reference to political opinion in the act is it means something substantially different to political offence in the treaty when it's the same lawyers who would have done it and passed it and not noticed they were drafting two totally incompatible documents is a nonsense. I used to work in the government and I know, and I've actually, on completely different subjects, but I've actually been responsible for drafting and signing off treaties and you have a clearance procedure which makes it impossible to enter into a treaty which is incompatible with existing legislation. It would be spotted that they're very strong systems in place where you have to circulate any treaty to countless lawyers and countless government departments for them to check its compatibility in existing legislation. So the argument that the treaty of 2007 was incompatible with the extradition act of 2003 and therefore its provisions do not apply where they conflict is.  It's a complete fiction and not even a good fiction.  Thank you for that, Craig. I think with that we might call it a night. I want to thank Craig Murray, wherever he is for coming on our show, just bring his expertise to this issue to Bruce. I'm coming to Greece today. Where? Greece? Greece. Yeah. Okay. I hope it's warmer than it is here in London where it was freezing and raining all day. Bruce Afron is on a sunny, looks like very sunny Princeton, New Jersey, where Chris Hedges is also coming from and of course Elizabeth is in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Kathy Vogan is running the whole thing behind the scenes from Sydney, Australia. And this is Joe Lawyer for CN Live saying goodbye and thanks for joining us. And we'll be back to discuss this issue some more, particularly after the 16th of April, which is a deadline for the US to see whether they're actually going to be giving these assurances or not. So again, talk to you then. Bye-bye. If you are a consumer of independent news and the first place you should be going to is Consolidation News and please do try to support them when you can. It doesn't have its articles behind a paywall. It's free for everyone. It's one of the best news sites out there and it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism for over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of Consolidation News, it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.


Well, this is the last lecture on the advanced spectroscopic technique which we have been discussing. So, the last technique which I started discussing on is on yields that is on electron energy loss spectroscopy and I have discussed with you the basics of yields is technique is relies on the aspect that electrons when falling on the samples of any type undergoes something known as inelastic scattering obviously electrons are used for electron diffraction in the electron microscopes and electron diffraction is more mostly because of the elastic scattering in which both energy and the momentum are conserved. But in case of inelastic scattering there is always some energy loss of the incident electron and the electron which has passed through which has basically passed to the sample this energy loss can be always due to certain kinds of electronic transitions happening in the material or it can be actually termed as atom electron excitations which are taking place. So, therefore if you analyze this electrons which are basically undergone inelastic scattering we can get informations regarding electronic structure band structure we let morning type and quantitatively also we can measure certain amount of element present in the material. So, first and foremost thing which I have done is that I looked at different kinds of energy losses and electron can undergo and showed you that there are different types of energy losses possible I will go back to the slide where I have shown you the first thing which happens is in a energy loss spectroscopy is division of the regions based on the energy. So, in case of low loss regions which is less than about 50 electron volts we always have phonon excitations which is very small actually close to 1 ev or less than 1 ev and they are not of any significance for the measurements because the beams which are used for measurements for electron spectroscopy are not so much monochromatized that we can talk about the energy split of our 0.5 electron volts. So, they are not resolved at all second important things which always happens in the low loss region is called inter band or inter band transitions between the electrons as you know the electrons moves in the orbital in the atoms. So, therefore when an electron coming from high energy source like an electron microscope is you know applies its all energy to eject certain electrons from one cell. So, that thing becomes that place become vacant and this can lead to inter or inter band transitions and this kind of things can give us a signature of the structure of the material because electronic energies are basically proportional to the type of atoms or type of element it is and they actually happens in the energy range of 5 to 25 electron volts well these are very important and we are going to we have already discussed about it we will discuss more and then you have something known as high energy loss where energy losses are more than 50 electron volts and things which happens they are here two things one is called plasmon excitation you know the plasmon's are basically you know collective oscillations of the of the electrons for the for the models and where the free electrons are large they are very strong and there can be both type of plasmon's at both surface plasmon or bulk plasmon one is a task piece task bus wave other one is a long cheer only because these are all collective oscillations. So, therefore there are nature's wave in nature and last thing which can happen is basically inner shell ionization that means you have different cells in the atoms KLM and OP we know that. So, in our cells which are KLM or KLM basically they contains very tightly bonded electrons and if the energy of the incoming electrons are very high this can eject an inner cell electron and this can lead to an ionization of the element and that can be used to detect an element in fact because energy levels of this electrons in the KLM cells are very well defined for different elements. So, this is I this actually nutshell the yield signals and this is what I have discussed with you and that is what actually obtained in yields particular signal I will show you the yields spectra yes. So, the zero loss in yield spectra corresponds to elastic scattering that means the electrons which are passed through and you know that any kind of electron microscopist will tell you that large number of electrons passes through the samples. So, therefore this particular peak in yield spectra we have very high intensity in fact this is the highest intensity. This is followed by plasmons plasmons comes in a energy range very close to the zero loss peak and then there are characteristics peaks like elemental peaks followed by other things like we know as ELNES and EXELFS they are all energy loss near a structures or extended energy loss near a finite structures which we will discuss now. So, these gives you lot of things about the electronic structure in the material before that let me just go into the band structure whatever we started with and where I will tell you how the bands can be yeah you know that yields maps can be used to get the band structure in a material it is possible actually and this is what has been shown in the slides is basically electrons which are ejected from the co-levels where the KLMN just now I discussed by the incident electron can scatter all into available states which are available to them and thus energy imparted by the incident electrons to get them basically to these transitions will reflect the density of states as simple as that. So, analysis results in electrons which are ejected from the co-states into the empty states above the Fermi levels and when that happens we can get informations of the band structure this is why these are actually called edges not peaks because they are just onset of transitions they are not actually taking a talking about the whole transition they are talking about on special let me explain let us suppose this is what the first picture has shows this is the empty state then this is the another the family level because below family level all the states are occupied our family level states are not occupied unoccupied and below family level you have conduction and the balance bands as you can see here well now let us assume that KLM there are three cells which are inner cells and energy levels coming out are basically suppose electrons which are ejected from K cell or M cell or L cell can basically have energies sufficient enough to travel into this conduction or balance state. In fact it may have energy sufficient enough to cross this many cases cause this you know family barrier family level and enter into empty states this is highly possible here I am just showing you a case of nickel oxide yield spectrum where you can see even the M cell energies of which have electrons which have actually moved inside the conduction like balance band very close to the yields very close to the family energy level as you know lead into a peak formation here and so this is the aim transition and this peak is correspond to those kind of states which were unfilled actually at the beginning in case of an ion yield spectrum. So that is how actually the band structure of the whole material can be obtained this is what again showed here this is a plot between any versus E as you can see here and this is the family level so these are the field state and these are the empty states and then you have basically density of states can be shown like this. So if I do certain kind of experiment like that means if I have electron energy is more than the transition energies then it can eject the electrons from the cells with sufficient ion energy so that this electrons can move into this empty states you can get something like this kind of extended structure fine structure information in the yield spectrum. Well that is you know very dependent upon what kind of transitions you are allowing like in EDX observable images are directly to the elemental cells that means we can always see K L M H S in EDS we know that but depending on the atomic of the material also we see that but here you can have even interband transitions like in within the M cells you have M 1 M 2 through 3 M 4 or within N cell N 1 N 2 3 N 4 N 6 7 like that so these transitions are also possible these are actually spin orbital transitions. Now obviously it can also give us information about the energy loss nearest structures which are there which I just I have shown you in the last slides. So let us now talk about in terms of schematic pictures this is energy band you see this is EV versus distance plot on the left side and then you see this is the family level this is the valence band EV and these are actually different atoms 1 2 3 4 5 and this within 1 atoms this electrons are sitting in K L M N OP but these are the 3 unit cells which are shown inside arena cells and this is the conduction band so the up to these field cells are there up to actually a family level and they have empty states and above empty states you have valence band. So actually in else what happens you can have an incident electron with a sufficiently high energy it can eject one of the electrons M L K in the cells and they can then move into this empty states and if they have even higher energy they can even move into the valence bands also now if I go back to the right hand side structure it will be more clear so the C K L M are the core states and they have valence bands and above that you have conduction bands and then EV is there so these kind of transitions from L 2 3 2 even empty states can give us information regarding this part this part of the energy levels and these are all actually called electron loss energy electron loss near a structures or extended electron loss finite structures. So first one is gives you the DOS or density of states in the conduction bands these are actually very well known and well understood now and they are used extensively second one it is not so widely used it actually can give us information regarding chemical bonding but it is still a lot of research needs to be done to understand this electronic transitions for electron extended energy loss fine scale structure this is just like x-saps in case of x-rays let me give you some more things about ELS how it can be used as finger printing in fact this is what is actually people do nowadays to know the exactly the electronic states a particular atom first let us talk about titanium titanium in three different compounds calcium titanate titanium dioxide and Ti 2 O 3. So in both calcium titanate Ti 2 O Ti O 2 the titanium actually has a plus 4 states and in case of Ti 2 O 3 it has plus 3 states if I look at the ELS spectra of titanium in all these three compounds I could see that depending on this electronic state there is this thing difference in terms of this illness spectra in case of calcium titanate titanium dioxide you have you can see four splits but in case of Ti 2 O 3 there is only two not only that there is a shift of energy losses to the lower values for Ti 2 O 3. So that means L 2 3's edge obtained from Ti 2 O 3 differs markedly from the tetravalent compounds like Ti O 2 or calcium titanate not only that in fact one can look at differences of Ti O 2 titanium state of titanium in Ti O 2 form a grain and from a twist boundary it can be done in electro micro so we can see a boundary of the twist type or tilt type. You can see the nature of the spectra a spectra actually remains same for both whether titanium oxide dioxide is present in the grain inside the grain or at the twist boundary but there is a distinct difference as per the energy levels are concerned they are not same. So there is this little difference so therefore Ti L 2 3 edge from a twist boundary all the closely matches with the structure of Ti O 2 standards but the fine structures are different that cannot be discussed within the framework of this lecture because one is to know what is the tilt boundary structure and what all things can be there a twist boundary structure so therefore it can be done this is this particular things are taken from Seth Taylor of G. Goval research and they are very important information well so after giving you band structure illness or the energy loss near a structures let us just you know compare EDS with yields there are many comparisons for EDS and yields I will give you a chart also at the end of this lecture you know yields are actually much more you know quantitatively qualitatively much more superior than EDS that is what will be taught by different books as you have seen number of counts in yields are very very large as compared to EDS first of all and both of them function actually like a collection angle EDS collects small angular distribution of the all emitted x-rays but yields actually in last scattering of electrons lastly forward scatter so therefore they are collected and that is why if the signals are more so therefore there will be higher quality of data now it can be shown here also you have a thin specimen here electrons are falling from the incident beam and then x-rays generated by detector by the EDS detector or x-ray detectors normally contains at this basically within a small window you can see this is the window only contains as a minus 4 to minus 2 of the emitted x-rays that means we collect very small amount of information which is generated that is the problem in EDS in TM that is why actually nowadays because of this problem many microscope especially the high end microscope uses several EDS detectors at least four within the TM column so that the quantity of information the quantity of the x-rays which can be gathered from the samples could be very large or at least it can be increased in case of pills the electrons pass through the sample and you collect the solid electrons which are undergone in last scattering in a solid angle of pi beta square of beta is incident angle or this actually this angle it contains most of the energy loss electrons so that is why eels is always preferred but you know eels requires lot of alignment of the microscope and many other things and is costly compared to EDS that is why very few labs has EDS. Now more on illness if we want to give it but I do not want to talk much details this is basically as I said they are all fine scale structures and they can be used for determination of the fine scale structure illness comes very near lower energy levels than the EXELFS and ELXC wave they all talk about density of state in fact you can obtain a radial distribution functions also because it talks about the near element configurations of the of a particular atom and therefore it is possible to obtain the radial distribution functions. So to give you some more ideas about that you know the two things one is important which one is to consider one is called single scattering and it is called puller scattering. When you have atoms in a you know surrounded by several atoms so what this black atom is surrounded by six atoms other atoms types and this is what actually we would like to know how these atoms are distributed around the black atom. So in a puller scattering the electron which comes like that it can come from the actually get scattered from the black atom then goes and gets scattered from all the six atoms and then come out that will carry the information regarding all the surrounding atoms and that is what actually they are in electron loss near a structures but on the other hand in case of X extended in electron energy law a fine scale structures fine structures you have only single scattering so one electron once electron actually scattered from the black atom goes to the one of these surrounding atoms and then comes back. So this is just for sake of understanding a convenience I am talking about this is all available in this books which I already refer to you so this kind of scattering actually are reflected in the X that is why in X C E L F S you have only very small minima present but in case of E L N E S you have large variation of the minima or maxima. So these signals are not so strong but these signals are quite stronger and fine can be can be used to determine density of states of band structures but warning type information which are there in the X C E L F S is not so clear is still under investigations of this has to be done well after giving lot of things about the different kinds of information which yields can generate we need to talk about what is the kind of resolution we can get or what is the kind of spatial resolution other we can get you know nowadays costly microscopes come up which with a very nice beam finds probe stable beam but still for the best performance you need to have very thin specimen because the more thicker is the specimen there will be more chance of analysis scattering and that can mask the information which are coming out from the electrons which are in less scattering catered you know through the sample. We also need to have electron gun of fake type that is the field emission gun because field emission guns gives you very high brightness of the beam and coherent because energy spread of the electrons in the field emission gun is very small. So therefore and also because the high brightness so you have a you can always have a small probe and normally the fake has a probe side will less than nowadays possible about 2 Armstrong. So we can actually obtain resolutions of that level this is what has been shown suppose you have a beam which is focused on the sample of diameter T and then once this is if possible sample you can see the spread increases. So therefore resolution actually not only depend on this size but also this size. So that is why we need to have finer probe so this size is finer this will be also finer that is what I am saying and in case of thermodynamic emission like tungsten or the lab 6 filaments the probe size is what are some magnitude larger. So therefore you cannot get kind of information which you like to get for the microscope when you are analyzing the samples. Very important which you also like to know when you are doing such a kind of investigation is the sensitivity of the ills as opposed to EDS you know sensitivity means if I have an element present in suppose 0.01 percentage can I detect you all well said and done EDS cannot detect an elements or rather resolution of BDX actually as they say sensitivity BDX is very poor when the element percentage is as low as 0.01 percentage. So the minimum detectable mass in case of you know EDS is tends to hundreds of atoms but with ills it is very large it should be hundreds of atoms. So that is why the ills actually is better and so it depends obviously on the microscopic sample this is what has been shown here minimum mass function detectable weight percentage versus spatial resolution. You can see here the this is the nickel and Fe in 100 kilo volt analytical microscope this is nickel and Fe in 30 kilo volt analytical microscope a very large probe size but you have a detectable levity is very small let me let me you can detect 0.01 percentage of the mass but here you can detect only one percentage. So in case of copper manganese in copper actually for 120 kilo volt AEM analytic electron microscope this is what is the case but in case of FEG the basically you can have very small probe size and you can also have minimum mass fraction as low as less than 0.1. So that is why we use always FEGs FEG means for the filimission gun electron microscopes the last thing which I am going to talk about is energy filter imaging or what is known as EFTM. As you know the electrons which are coming out from the from the sample which are in less C scatter they contains all the chemical information I showed you the type of element presents the what is called amount of element present we can also did do that the electronic states. So why cannot you use this electrons to map actual image. So that is known as energy filter image obviously one needs to if one needs to map properly you need to filter the electrons which are in less C scatter depending on the energy levels. So I will tell you how it is possible as a time as the slides up so on. So what is done here this is a simple a map of an in spectra so they basically the you know this is what the sample is sitting there this is a beam screen and the energy in a static electron passes through aperture then some alignment coils then the magnetic prism then it passes to six quadruples and six sexta poles fall finally we detect them in a CCT detector. So we can actually map this electrons on the image that is what I am trying to say and that can be done as I said by energy filter so what can be done actually here the change of my configuration in a microscope as you see this is the specimen this is the objective lens and there are all intermediate lens and then once this things are coming out from the intermediate lens it passes through this kind of setup which is known as sector full lens gamma filter is patented by Garten corporation USA and they can split the actually the in a CCT electrons in different energy levels they can filter actually and then it can passes to set of other lenses and then we can get the image. So that means you have to attach this part inside the column of the electron microscope to obtain this kind of energy filter imaging that is what I am to say so that means extra cost basically you have to add this filters within the columns to get energy filter imaging. Let us see how this is basically done it is nothing but a contrast enhancement technique as I said it improves the contrast in images also diffraction patterns by removing the elastic scatter electrons that produce the heavy background that is the first thing it is also mapping technique so first thing is we can do is that we can remove the elastic scattering unit you can block them all of them we can only have you know image produced by elastic scatter electrons so that way the quality of the image or contrast of the image will be improved that is the first thing one can do second thing one can do is the is used a mapping you know EDS case used as a mapping technique so this also can be used to create elemental maps by forming images with elastic scatter electron of particle energy levels also this is and you know analytical technique it can records your electron energy loss spectra or even maps to provide precise chemical analysis of the samples so that is actually a national and EFTM can do so first thing I will show you probably the first example and this is I think do not need to show you this is actually exactly what is done I have shown already to you so let me skip and in a in a energy electron mind expect prism is needed to separate the relative evidence that is what is done here you see this is the energy loss this is what is called scatter in a less scatter so therefore you can separate them and so therefore if I put a filter if I just put a if I allow only this beam which is elastic is scattered and then I can basically get nice images contrast enhancing if I only this one skill in less scatter electrons then I can get you know much other information that is what I am trying to say so you can use a prism electromagnetic prism here extra which is nothing but a omega filter and to separate them out in fact one can actually take this in a C scatter electrons and then separate them out depending on energy levels that is also possible so let us give me why I let me give you some examples this is taken from Rudeau Gidman from Max Plan Institute biochemy and as you see here this is basically a zero loss contest enhancement by zero loss filtering and you see here once this is original image and this is after the you know filtering so you can see there is a huge change from the contrast I do not know whether it can be seen on the skin but at least for the image I can see this this lot of other features are vanished and you can see when the corresponding diffraction pattern has quality has improved so you can always claim that using FTM we can always create better images and diffraction patterns to give some more informations how energy filter TM can be used to produce better diffraction patterns this is the conventional TM we can see sticks passing through this and once you map the intensity you can see this kind of broad things and also followed by this small you know picks but once you use energy filter TM we can enhance this small speaks so what you see here very clearly change the diffraction pattern these brightest parts are the brightest parts surrounded by six weakest parts which is not visible there so that is how actually you can improve the contrast of the electronic diffraction pattern which is not possible use other so here we have removed all the secretive electron by using the prism well one can actually create an image using this electrons that are slowed down by the interaction of the specific elements and they are all called electron spectroscopic that is what I showed here so basically it is a in a strictly scattered electrons which are produced image and this is accomplished by using increasing the extended voltage of TM precisely by the addition energy needed one can go actually up to 1,100,000 EV what is done here is simple like this this is the global avenging setup this is what is the quadrupole gamma filter omega filter so you have a specimen electron energy comes energy loss and then it passes through that and then you can basically have a elastic scatter electron elastic scatter electron is basically without slit so if you use a slit you can separate them out nicely this is what is actually done in omega filters and one can use different kinds of filters there is no need of showing that it is Gatron as the filters the O house also filters different components are making different filters last things which I am going to show you is called stem yields stem yields in a sense that it can be used to you know determine the particular atom present in a highly high resolution or microscopy actually what is done is let me tell you that so suppose this is the atomic gasment of certain held you know certain compound elements or let us say compound here because there are different covers atoms so you have a electron falling on to that and then each atom has different scattering power right that depends on the atomic electronic configurations so depending on this scattering power electrons they will get scattered different angles now if we apply an annular detector like this is annular this is a central hole is like this central hole and this is a detector so if I have annular detector I can collect the electrons coming scattered electrons coming at different angles from the incident beam this this or this or this like that which is scattered after it passes the sample the sample is here and once I correct that and I know the different atoms different atoms of different scattering power so therefore I can actually image the the atoms in high resolution microscope at the same time if I take yield yields from each of these atoms atomically you know I can detect what atom is presents so therefore by using together is Steven yields one can actually determine the atoms in the high resolution electron microscope which is not possible so far but with the advent of you know new kind of contest magazine like in Titan this has become obsolete because in Titan I can equal get contrast form even each atom differently you do not need to actually do the stem so I will give you some example of EFTM this is just the different layers in a thin multi-layer thin film so you can see the contrast here is different than the contrast here so you can actually see this is graded silicon germanium multi-layers not SI layer between them the only two multiple monolayers single molar detection is very easy so you can see single molar this are high resolution images you can see when the atomic planes and rapid acquisition also possible so you can quantify that this is again taken from my own our own work this is basically I have shown you at the beginning of the this this course when you deposit copper using pulse electro deposition techniques we always use the theory and theory has many roles to play it can control the nucleus and mechanism for the thin film deposition you can control the growth also it is postulated that theory contains lot of sulfur and sulfur gets collected at the gain boundaries of the grains this is a grain copper grain nano crystalline you can say approximately about 50 nanometers and once they collected around the grain that it will present the gain boundaries and this sulfur atoms then can pin the gain boundaries for further growth so therefore theory I can act as a gain you know inhibitor and that can be proved using energy filter imaging so if I use sulfur energy edge that means if I only allow the energy loss due to sulfur atoms in the yield spectra and then I will image that on to the on to the image so I can see that all this gain boundaries are getting bright enough you can see here you can see there so you can see there so that means indeed sulfur atoms are present the gain boundaries so that means our postulation that theory I act as a gain got inhibitor can be proved by this way this is now published and journal this is now published in the reputed journal so one can actually look at details but it is possible to take up certain kind of issue and then to the energy filter imaging and to show that these are actually true well one can also actually do much better things if you this is again taken from our my own work or our own examples these are actually nanoparticles created when you leach aluminium nickel cobalt cost crystals so they create this kind of you know blocky crystals and you can see they are actually nickel cobalt FCC and you know nickel cobalt has almost you know atomic numbers very nearby so it is very difficult to say that nickel or cobalt present in the coin these particles by edx analysis so only here we can show is by using eftm mapping so you can see here this is a big size particles even more than 100 nanometers quite close to about 250 nanometers you can map nickel and cobalt in this and if you look at carefully the nickel is much less in these particles than cobalt because cobalt map shows much better regions than the nickel map and if I do it is in a function of size suppose if you go to intermediate size you can see still nickel quantity is less than the cobalt in those particles if you do the nickel and cobalt map these are impossible in edx actually you cannot do that because they are atom and nickel and cobalt atomic numbers are nearby if you go to very small particles you can see suppose look at this one nickel and cobalt distribution is almost uniform you may ask me what the need of doing this well as you know these small particles which are actually alloys of nickel and cobalt nanoparticle they are used as a catalyst so catalytic behavior of those particles will depend upon the animal to distribution and also the atomic electronic structure so by using yields one can actually obtain all kinds of informations and then use it understand the catalytic behavior of this this is what is our aim also to do that but I am showing a part of the work so by this way we can actually go down to a very small particles which is actually approximately about 40 nanometers and do mapping nickel and cobalt this is not so good but still you can see cobalt is almost as quantity is almost same as the nickel so by this way we can actually do all kinds of analysis so as I said at some time in the lecture that I will tell you detailed comparison of the yields and eds well yields as a higher spatial resolution as edx may be affected by background scattering yields as a higher energy resolution than edx around one electron volts yields is better in detecting lighter elements than eds eds can be used to detect elements which are atomic number less than carbon or C6 yields contains information of electronic structure we do eds does not contain eds is easy to operate that is why everybody uses and quick for qualitative analysis however yield spectra from thick specimens may be difficult to intermediate because of the pool scattering which has shown you interpretation of fine structure sometime requires software lot of sophisticated calculations which I could not show you because with time constant so with this I conclude this lecture the next lecture I am going to start with the surface characterization techniques mostly XPS and XPS and the Augia spectroscopy and move on.