PDA

View Full Version : Wikileaks - a great Aussie



antichrist
22-05-2010, 03:20 PM
Would it be amazing if an Aussie, Julian Assange, is behind Wikileaks.

But another mongrel Aussie, Rudd, wants to put a bar on it if that new internet filter comes on. BOO BOO

Metro
23-05-2010, 05:22 AM
Would it be amazing if an Aussie, Julian Assange, is behind Wikileaks.

But another mongrel Aussie, Rudd, wants to put a bar on it if that new internet filter comes on. BOO BOO
A whistleblowers paradise.Here's an item in The Age on Saturday http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-secret-life-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-20100521-w1um.html

Wikileaks, he says, has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined.

''That's not something I say as a way of saying how successful we are - rather, that shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media. How is it that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined? It's disgraceful.''

Duff McKagan
02-06-2010, 12:23 AM
Here is a very interesting article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?printable=true

What is interesting is that it is dated June 7th.

What more can we say but eyjafjallajökull!

Igor_Goldenberg
08-12-2010, 09:24 AM
The darling of the left seems to be a victim of another darling of left - militant feminism.
If this article facts are correct (http://www.chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=279518) allegations against the Assange are stupid. But they show how low Sweden sunk in feminising it's society.

arosar
08-12-2010, 10:45 AM
Uumm...maybe I missed the memo somewhere, but when did it become OK for public figures to openly call for the assassination of other public figures?

AR

Garvinator
08-12-2010, 11:44 AM
Uumm...maybe I missed the memo somewhere, but when did it become OK for public figures to openly call for the assassination of other public figures?
Especially when Australia's official position is that we are against the death penalty.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-12-2010, 12:28 PM
Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/comments-fn775xjq-1225967241332)

I think he overstates (vastly!) importance of the documents revealed, as well as the real level of discomfort.
Conspirologists around the world are claiming he works for CIA or Mossad (or any other organisation they hate at the moment), as leaks failed to prove single conspiracy theory or vicious anti-American campaigns from the hard left.

I even thought that Americans and Co were feigning indignation to give more credibility to leaked documents. Some of them (including our Julia) were outright silly.

However, publishing the list and location of vulnerably security sites was vastly irresponsible.

Rincewind
08-12-2010, 01:19 PM
Uumm...maybe I missed the memo somewhere, but when did it become OK for public figures to openly call for the assassination of other public figures?

15 March, 44BC

Ian Murray
08-12-2010, 08:01 PM
15 March, 44BC
Beware the Ides!

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2010, 12:07 AM
Interesting to see Kevin Rudd forthrightly blaming "the Americans" for the release of the documents and explicitly stating it is not Assange's fault.

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2010, 01:52 AM
http://www.theage.com.au/national/arbib-revealed-as-secret-us-source-20101208-18prg.html

Wikileaks reveals Mark Arbib as key US Embassy source for information about Labor and the Australian government.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. :lol:

Ian Murray
09-12-2010, 07:10 AM
Avaaz online petition for free speech:

Dear friends,

The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a chill through free press advocates everywhere.

Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world's leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.

The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown and forward this email to everyone -- let's get to 1 million voices and take out full page ads in US newspapers this week!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php?cl_tta_sign=c7586ff1be918236f248b4d1294a020 6

WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and corporate corruption.

The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues it has to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations. Click below to join the call to stop the crackdown:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php?cl_tta_sign=c7586ff1be918236f248b4d1294a020 6

Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens behind the scenes? This is why - because when they do, governments can be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it's up to the public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.

With hope,
Ricken, Emma, Alex, Alice, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team.

SOURCES:

Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm

WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists-says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html

Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-ff15-11df-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz17QvQ4Ht5

Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon

"WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists" (PC World):
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists .html

US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)
http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-gov-shows-true-control-over-internet-with-wikileaks-containment/

US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian Science Monitor)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1207/WikiLeaks-ditched-by-MasterCard-Visa.-Who-s-next

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2010, 08:27 AM
One must wonder why a petition to stop attack on Assange does not include a call to change stupid feminazi laws that Sweden has and other European countries happy to accept?

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2010, 08:32 AM
w0xLyoc9DxU

Rincewind
09-12-2010, 08:37 AM
One must wonder why a petition to stop attack on Assange does not include a call to change stupid feminazi laws that Sweden has and other European countries happy to accept?

The petition doesn't mention Assange the letter quoted above makes it clear that the Assange is only related coincidentally with the intent - which is to protect WikiLeaks as a media outlet.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2010, 08:38 AM
The petition doesn't mention Assange the letter quoted above makes it clear that the Assange is only related coincidentally with the intent - which is to protect WikiLeaks as a media outlet.
Yet everything apart from his arrest is a puff of hot air.

arosar
09-12-2010, 09:24 AM
Some fine commentary (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/political-risk-in-making-a-martyr-of-assange-20101208-18ppy.html) from Malcolm. Despite him being a Lib, he is still one of my legal heroes.

And on a side note, I hope this man gets back the top job in the Libs. I'd vote for him!

AR

Rincewind
09-12-2010, 11:06 AM
Yet everything apart from his arrest is a puff of hot air.

US authorities putting pressure on financial organisations like PayPal, Visa and Mastercard which effectively stop WikiLeaks from accepting donations and thereby preventing them from raising funds to prepare their legal defense is hardly hot air.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2010, 02:16 PM
US authorities putting pressure on financial organisations like PayPal, Visa and Mastercard which effectively stop WikiLeaks from accepting donations and thereby preventing them from raising funds to prepare their legal defense is hardly hot air.
True. Even though I found it quite strange that PayPal, Visa and Mastercard succumb to US pressure while large US newspapers don't.

Watto
09-12-2010, 02:43 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/national/arbib-revealed-as-secret-us-source-20101208-18prg.html

Wikileaks reveals Mark Arbib as key US Embassy source for information about Labor and the Australian government.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. :lol:
Yes, it will be interesting to see whether he suffers at all from the revelation.

Rincewind
09-12-2010, 03:11 PM
True. Even though I found it quite strange that PayPal, Visa and Mastercard succumb to US pressure while large US newspapers don't.

I don't find it strange at all. I can well imagine that another media outlet would show marginally more spine on a freedom of the press test case than would a financial institution which makes a small amount of money from transactions flowing through to WikiLeaks. However, when it comes to a pure bean count - trouble with the authorities might be a good deal more costly, and financial institutions are not in the business of taking risks on ideological issues.

arosar
09-12-2010, 03:52 PM
It's not even going to be a "test case" as US papers are covered under the 1st Amendment. If the DOJ turns on them, they can simply argue that they merely reported based on info given to them by Wikileaks, no different to similar such leak scenarios in the past.

But I kind of agree with Iggy here. It is a bit strange for these companies to turn on WikiLeaks especially since it is still not at all clear exactly what law WikiLeaks/Assange is supposed to have violated. Which is probably partly why Paypal have since reversed their decision and agreed to release funds to WikiLeaks.

AR

Manack
09-12-2010, 04:01 PM
Which is probably partly why Paypal have since reversed their decision and agreed to release funds to WikiLeaks.

It's not a full reversal as Wikileaks is still banned from using PayPal. Paypal is just letting them now remove money already accumulated in the paypal account.

antichrist
09-12-2010, 04:14 PM
Maybe Julian should have got out of Sweden whilst the going was good. Palestine would have protected him maybe - they don't give in easily to the usual control freaks.

Rincewind
09-12-2010, 07:53 PM
But I kind of agree with Iggy here. It is a bit strange for these companies to turn on WikiLeaks especially since it is still not at all clear exactly what law WikiLeaks/Assange is supposed to have violated. Which is probably partly why Paypal have since reversed their decision and agreed to release funds to WikiLeaks.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Of course the financial institutions ought not to cease trading with WikiLeaks until it is clear that they are doing something illegal. The reason they have is principally due to the pressure applied to them by the US government.

Similarly the papers are more likely to be sympathetic to WikiLeaks ideological position and as well as that are more likely to protect themselves from prosecution. Even if under pressure from the government they are more likely to press ahead because they know that next time it could be one of them being shut down by the government.

Both these being true a rational person would expect the papers to be more outspoken and the financial institutions to kowtow - which is exactly what has happened. Nothing strange or unexpected at all.

Of course the negative press and fear of customer and cyber reprisals may alter the decisions of the financial institutions.

Garvinator
10-12-2010, 02:17 AM
Yes, it will be interesting to see whether he suffers at all from the revelation.He won't, certainly not in the term of this parliament.

Things are just too finely balanced for Labor to be sacking anyone, who removing someone like Arbib from their position because of the possible blowback from the factions.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2010, 01:07 PM
In light of recent revelations, is Griffith by-election more likely?:lol: :lol:

deanhogg
10-12-2010, 02:53 PM
l see no transparency now with governments now after some of cables were

release in public domain .It will simply drive them even more into a secretive

state and by-passing many sites and use more old fashion ways in sending

documents out ,even if lot of these documents are unfounded just merely

phantoms .This could do more damage between relationships with people and

Governments in years to come and not just the present . l'd be very cautious in what you read from wikileaks !

Ian Murray
10-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Don't shoot the messenger, award him the Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=24392)
EUREKA STREET - Michael Mullins December 06, 2010


...Yet this year WikiLeaks has taught us valuable lessons about the suppression and manipulation of information, and how such activities pose a threat to the common good.

This is how it goes. We accept a particular version of events because it is presented to us by a public figure or organisation we trust. That is how it should be. But public officials need scrutiny to ensure they are acting in the public interest, and not their own or that of a third party.

It's our right to query the benefit in being kept in the dark, for example, on the secret moves of US and UK officials to undermine the ban on cluster bombs. One of the cables released by WikiLeaks shows that the British Foreign Office suggested a loophole to allow the US to keep cluster bombs on British soil should be kept from Parliament.

It's likely that the geopolitical interests of the US and the UK were being put ahead of the lives of innocent civilians in war zones.

Such activities fly in the face of our humanitarian obligations. Yet the suppression of information about them is presented as being 'in the public interest'.

In Australia, there is an implication that our national interest is being served by Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland's vigorous investigation into whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has broken any laws. Arguably Assange deserves a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for upholding the value of transparency and the internationally protected human right to freedom of information.

In its inaugural session in 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution — 59(I) — which stated:


Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and and is the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated. [It] implies the right to gather, transmit and publish news anywhere. It is an essential factor in any serious effort to promote the peace and progress of the world....

antichrist
10-12-2010, 06:23 PM
It's our right to query the benefit in being kept in the dark, for example, on the secret moves of US and UK officials to undermine the ban on cluster bombs. One of the cables released by WikiLeaks shows that the British Foreign Office suggested a loophole to allow the US to keep cluster bombs on British soil should be kept from Parliament.
----------------------------------------

AC
Yet they will bomb the Mohammed out of Iraq for weapons they don't even have, whilst hiding illegal weapons themselves. The same with Israel's nuke bombs that Vanunu confirmed.

Julian Assange, along with Andrew Wilkie, that Sinclair guy from Fraser Island battle plus a few I have forgotten, are real Aussie heroes who leave many knighted billionaries guys for dead.

Ian Murray
10-12-2010, 10:45 PM
Enough With The Sausages, Assange (http://newmatilda.com/2010/12/09/enough-sausages-assange)
by Ben Pobjie, newmatilda.com 9.12.2010


...And that’s how it is with Rudd. We’d thought the fact he was not only the worst prime minister in the history of this or any other nation, but probably the worst person of any kind, was our little secret. Logically, deep down, we probably knew that other people had noticed, what with the way he was constantly flying around the world every week, getting drunk and visiting strip clubs and swearing at the Chinese and generally being a pest; but we could repress these thoughts. We could choose to believe otherwise, and that’s what Wikileaks has done to us: it has taken away our capacity to believe the blatantly untrue for the sake of our own mental wellbeing.

And this is an important capacity. Our very sanity depends on our being able to dismiss and disbelieve those facts which would make us unhappy and/or insane. This is the bedrock of any number of social institutions. Religion, for example, or the thriving climate change denial industry — imagine if all our opinions on climate change were based on "the facts": our economy would collapse and we would all become extremely depressed at the utter hopelessness of it all. Our only chance of a happy life lies in our ability to totally ignore the inevitability of our species’ destruction. The same goes for our ability to ignore, say, the fact that Julie Bishop is just an election and a tragic triathlon mishap away from becoming Prime Minister, or the fact that Trevor Marmalade continues to find gainful employment. There are some things that not only do we not need to know, we spend a good portion of our psychic energy avoiding the knowing of.
...
We didn’t want to know any of this, but Wikileaks has thrust it upon us. Thanks a lot, Wikileaks. We used to be happy. We used to be content. We used to have confidence in our governments’ commitment to serving the public interest by never revealing just how horrifically they were abusing the public interest...

antichrist
10-12-2010, 11:44 PM
...And that’s how it is with Rudd. We’d thought the fact he was not only the worst prime minister in the history of this or any other nation, but probably the worst person of any kind, was our little secret. Logically, deep down, we probably knew that other people had noticed, what with the way he was constantly flying around the world every week, getting drunk and visiting strip clubs and swearing at the Chinese and generally being a pest; but we could repress these thoughts. We could choose to believe otherwise, and that’s what Wikileaks has done to us: it has taken away our capacity to believe the blatantly untrue for the sake of our own mental wellbeing.
----------------------------------------------

I did not repress these thoughts at all, I just did not consider them important and still do not. It is like people discovering that god does not exist and getting a shock and blaming religion, I don't respect that at all, I just think how silly they were to believe in a god in the first place (unless brainwashed at childhood).

So Rudd was a control freak - I come across such people every day of my life - but in the end I don't let them win.

antichrist
10-12-2010, 11:52 PM
or the thriving climate change denial industry — imagine if all our opinions on climate change were based on "the facts": our economy would collapse and we would all become extremely depressed at the utter hopelessness of it all. Our only chance of a happy life lies in our ability to totally ignore the inevitability of our species’ destruction
--------------------------------------------------

This is not a new phonomena, I have encountered the same attotide for probably every environmental issue in past 40 years, also nuke bombs could be justified coz to get rid of them actually meant doing something and actually thinking - oh, that is like asking them to walk on hot coals.
No wonder movers and shakers graduate to dictatorial methods.

Ian Murray
11-12-2010, 09:59 AM
...And that’s how it is with Rudd. We’d thought the fact he was not only the worst prime minister in the history of this or any other nation, but probably the worst person of any kind, was our little secret. Logically, deep down, we probably knew that other people had noticed, what with the way he was constantly flying around the world every week, getting drunk and visiting strip clubs and swearing at the Chinese and generally being a pest; but we could repress these thoughts. We could choose to believe otherwise, and that’s what Wikileaks has done to us: it has taken away our capacity to believe the blatantly untrue for the sake of our own mental wellbeing.
----------------------------------------------

I did not repress these thoughts at all, I just did not consider them important and still do not. It is like people discovering that god does not exist and getting a shock and blaming religion, I don't respect that at all, I just think how silly they were to believe in a god in the first place (unless brainwashed at childhood).

So Rudd was a control freak - I come across such people every day of my life - but in the end I don't let them win.
Don't take it too seriously - it's a satirical piece

antichrist
12-12-2010, 08:17 AM
I am 4 days behind news but keeping all HEralds to salive over

Rincewind
12-12-2010, 10:12 AM
I am 4 days behind news but keeping all HEralds to salive over

Probably a good use for them.

Rincewind
12-12-2010, 10:12 AM
I am 4 days behind news but keeping all HEralds to salive over

Probably a good use for them. The paper is quite absorbent.

deanhogg
12-12-2010, 10:36 AM
Probably a good use for them. The paper is quite absorbent. Same with on-line papers :)

Rincewind
12-12-2010, 12:29 PM
Same with on-line papers :)

That would depend on the wettability of the individual monitor.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-12-2010, 09:25 AM
Don't shoot the messenger, award him the Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=24392)
EUREKA STREET - Michael Mullins December 06, 2010


...Yet this year WikiLeaks has taught us valuable lessons about the suppression and manipulation of information, and how such activities pose a threat to the common good.

This is how it goes. We accept a particular version of events because it is presented to us by a public figure or organisation we trust. That is how it should be. But public officials need scrutiny to ensure they are acting in the public interest, and not their own or that of a third party.

It's our right to query the benefit in being kept in the dark, for example, on the secret moves of US and UK officials to undermine the ban on cluster bombs. One of the cables released by WikiLeaks shows that the British Foreign Office suggested a loophole to allow the US to keep cluster bombs on British soil should be kept from Parliament.

It's likely that the geopolitical interests of the US and the UK were being put ahead of the lives of innocent civilians in war zones.

Such activities fly in the face of our humanitarian obligations. Yet the suppression of information about them is presented as being 'in the public interest'.

In Australia, there is an implication that our national interest is being served by Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland's vigorous investigation into whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has broken any laws. Arguably Assange deserves a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for upholding the value of transparency and the internationally protected human right to freedom of information.

In its inaugural session in 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution — 59(I) — which stated:


Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and and is the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated. [It] implies the right to gather, transmit and publish news anywhere. It is an essential factor in any serious effort to promote the peace and progress of the world....
But did Wikileaks actually reveal anything of the substance we didn't know already?
Did it reveal any crimes or misconduct of the government (either US or AUS)?
And will it actually lead to a more transparent or more secretive government?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-12-2010, 09:31 AM
I know it's a really long bow, but proposition is tempting:D :

Rudd now publicly contradicts his once trusted former deputy (http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/kevin-rudd-defends-assanges-rights-and-promises-him-a-laptop/story-fn79cf6x-1225969829551#ixzz17vd96eQ2)


"Under law, I'm responsible for the Passports Act, therefore the decisions concerning the withdrawal or otherwise of passports rests exclusively with the foreign minister based on the advice of the relevant agencies," Mr Rudd told The Australian in Cairo.

He can't win the Labor caucus vote in any brawl against Gillard (or anyone else). If it leads to him losing the position of Foreign Minister, it might lead to him resigning from the parliament and Griffith by-election. Despite big margin Labor is far from certain to win it. Liberal win in Griffith will bring down Gillard government (which Gillard understands and will try to avoid at all cost).
Will Assange claim causing change in government in this case?

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2010, 01:06 PM
He can't win the Labor caucus vote in any brawl against Gillard (or anyone else). If it leads to him losing the position of Foreign Minister, it might lead to him resigning from the parliament and Griffith by-election. Despite big margin Labor is far from certain to win it. Liberal win in Griffith will bring down Gillard government (which Gillard understands and will try to avoid at all cost).
Will Assange claim causing change in government in this case?

A few things about this scenario (possible as it is!)

Firstly if Rudd gets sick of the government he doesn't need to trigger a by-election. He can resign and sit as an independent or he can simply cross the floor. Of course the latter would get him expelled from the party, as Billy Hughes was expelled from the Nationalists after crossing the floor to bring down Bruce's government as payback to Bruce for effectively rolling him years before.

Secondly a change of one seat might bring down the Gillard government, but it doesn't install the Abbott government right away. It leaves a deadlocked parliament which can sack a Speaker but not easily appoint a new one and which therefore most likely has to go to an election. Which in all likelihood Labor would lose, but you never know until it actually happens.

Thirdly if rats can go one way they can go the other way, so if Rudd ratted (or resigned and the party lost his seat) then someone like Slipper might counter-rat.

Fourthly the role of Katter and Crook need to be considered. Would Katter actively support a no-confidence motion or not? Could Crook be bribed into supporting Labor with a truckload of pro-WA pork? We don't really know.

But I think what we're seeing here is Rudd grabbing an opportunity to symbolically assert himself on an issue to test the waters as to whether the party will (a) risk its own survival in government by trying to shut him down or (b) basically allow him as much freedom to operate as Foreign Minister as he wants.

I'm guessing that Gillard will make noises but in the end it will be (b).

Igor_Goldenberg
13-12-2010, 03:18 PM
Firstly if Rudd gets sick of the government he doesn't need to trigger a by-election. He can resign and sit as an independent or he can simply cross the floor. Of course the latter would get him expelled from the party, as Billy Hughes was expelled from the Nationalists after crossing the floor to bring down Bruce's government as payback to Bruce for effectively rolling him years before.
I doubt he'd ever cross the floor, it would reflect on him too badly. Resignation and by-election is more acceptable (especially in a notionally safe seat). And Labor win in the by-election is still more likely, but far from certain.


Secondly a change of one seat might bring down the Gillard government, but it doesn't install the Abbott government right away. It leaves a deadlocked parliament which can sack a Speaker but not easily appoint a new one and which therefore most likely has to go to an election. Which in all likelihood Labor would lose, but you never know until it actually happens.
Most likely Windsor and Oakeshott will run to the Libs, they prefer hung parliament to the new election.


Thirdly if rats can go one way they can go the other way, so if Rudd ratted (or resigned and the party lost his seat) then someone like Slipper might counter-rat.
Slipper crossing the floor is as unlikely as Rudd


Fourthly the role of Katter and Crook need to be considered. Would Katter actively support a no-confidence motion or not? Could Crook be bribed into supporting Labor with a truckload of pro-WA pork? We don't really know.

Don't know about Katter, but for Crook supporting Labor will be suicidal.


But I think what we're seeing here is Rudd grabbing an opportunity to symbolically assert himself on an issue to test the waters as to whether the party will (a) risk its own survival in government by trying to shut him down or (b) basically allow him as much freedom to operate as Foreign Minister as he wants.

I'm guessing that Gillard will make noises but in the end it will be (b).
Yes, Rudd knows Gillard won't dare to reprimand him, can't miss a chance to slap her.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2010, 08:56 PM
Slipper crossing the floor is as unlikely as Rudd

Don't know about that one. Slipper is being very seriously heavied by his own side behind the scenes from what I hear.

antichrist
16-12-2010, 10:41 AM
Apparently one of the sex assult charges against Assange is that he had consenual sex without a condom - maybe condom was part of the agreement or accidentally came off.

But maybe Julian was just being a good Catholic and following the Popes edict that they are only allowable for homosexuals.

Poor guy is certainly in a conundrum - between the Church and civil authorities - give unto Ceasar what is... Give unto God what is....

And give unto your lady everything in between

Igor_Goldenberg
20-12-2010, 08:33 AM
Joe Biden labelled Assange a terrorist (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assange-a-high-tech-terrorist-biden/story-e6frg6so-1225973696881). Who said Dan Quayle was the stupidest American vice-president?

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2010, 01:27 PM
Joe Biden labelled Assange a terrorist (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assange-a-high-tech-terrorist-biden/story-e6frg6so-1225973696881). Who said Dan Quayle was the stupidest American vice-president?

Hmmm, that would make Biden stupid enough to be a right-wing Republican since plenty of those have been using the t-word. But the report only indicates that asked whether Assange was more akin to a whistleblower or a high-tech terrorist, Biden said "I would argue that it's closer to being a high-tech terrorist." The heading oversimplifies the comment, which is still fairly dumb, but not as bad as it makes out.

I think the correct answer goes something like "He's not the Messiah or a terrorist, he's just a very naughty little boy."

Igor_Goldenberg
21-12-2010, 08:32 AM
I recommend to everyone who is interested in the issue a very good wrap-up by Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks):


This raises the question of why diplomats can’t always simply state their minds rather than publicly mouth preposterous platitudes. It could be as simple as this: My son was a terrible pianist. He completely lacked talent. After his recitals at age 10, I would pretend to be enthralled. He knew he was awful and he knew I knew he was awful, but it was appropriate that I not admit what I knew. It is called politeness and sometimes affection. There is rarely affection among nations, but politeness calls for behaving differently when a person is in the company of certain other people than when that person is with colleagues talking about those people. This is the simplest of human rules. Not admitting what you know about others is the foundation of civilization. The same is true among diplomats and nations.




There is, of course, the question of whether states should hold secrets, which is at the root of the WikiLeaks issue. Assange claims that by revealing these secrets WikiLeaks is doing a service. His ultimate maxim, as he has said on several occasions, is that if money and resources are being spent on keeping something secret, then the reasons must be insidious. Nations have secrets for many reasons, from protecting a military or intelligence advantage to seeking some advantage in negotiations to, at times, hiding nefarious plans. But it is difficult to imagine a state — or a business or a church — acting without confidentiality. Imagine that everything you wrote and said in an attempt to figure out a problem was made public? Every stupid idea that you discarded or clueless comment you expressed would now be pinned on you. But more than that, when you argue that nations should engage in diplomacy rather than war, taking away privacy makes diplomacy impossible. If what you really think of the guy on the other side of the table is made public, how can diplomacy work?

This is the contradiction at the heart of the WikiLeaks project. Given what I have read Assange saying, he seems to me to be an opponent of war and a supporter of peace. Yet what he did in leaking these documents, if the leaking did anything at all, is make diplomacy more difficult. It is not that it will lead to war by any means; it is simply that one cannot advocate negotiations and then demand that negotiators be denied confidentiality in which to conduct their negotiations. No business could do that, nor could any other institution. Note how vigorously WikiLeaks hides the inner workings of its own organization, from how it is funded to the people it employs.

On possibility (or impossibility) of legal charges against Assange:


Now it is interesting whether the sheer existence of WikiLeaks constituted encouragement or conspiracy with anyone willing to pass on classified information to him. But more interesting by far is the sequence of events that led a U.S. Army private first class not only to secure the material but to know where to send it and how to get it there. If Pfc. Bradley Manning conceived and executed the theft by himself, and gave the information to WikiLeaks unprompted, Assange is clear. But anyone who assisted Manning or encouraged him is probably guilty of conspiracy, and if Assange knew what was being done, he is probably guilty, too. There was talk about some people at MIT helping Manning. Unscrambling the sequence is what the Justice Department is undoubtedly doing now. Assange cannot be guilty of treason, since he isn’t a U.S. citizen. But he could be guilty of espionage. His best defense will be that he can’t be guilty of espionage because the material that was stolen was so trivial.

arosar
21-12-2010, 08:59 PM
What is about Australians? Now there's a 17 year old sheila who's calling herself the female Julian Assange and who's apparently wreaking havoc in the AFL.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
21-12-2010, 09:37 PM
What is about Australians? Now there's a 17 year old sheila who's calling herself the female Julian Assange and who's apparently wreaking havoc in the AFL.

AR
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce".

Igor_Goldenberg
20-01-2011, 08:30 AM
WikiLeaks locked in war of words (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/wikileaks-locked-in-war-of-words/story-e6frg6z6-1225991320260)

...........
And Assange, the 21st century's champion of leaks and free flows of information, is even reported to have threatened in November to sue The Guardian if it published stories after the newspaper had obtained its own leaked copy of the WikiLeaks databanks.
...........

Other British journalists and commentators, perhaps partly motivated by what Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens calls "Wiki envy" over The Guardian's barrage of WikiLeaks scoops, are revelling in the falling out and in the irony of Assange complaining about leaks.
..........

antichrist
20-01-2011, 11:24 AM
assange should be australian of the year, regardless of those sexual allegations. If he does not deserve it than no one does

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
26-01-2011, 12:11 AM
assange should be australian of the year, regardless of those sexual allegations. If he does not deserve it than no one does

that's a splendid idea !! lets award australian of the year to a guy currently under investigation for sexual assault.

your an idiot a/c.

antichrist
26-01-2011, 12:28 AM
rest of post moved to more approp thread


................
Nor did he upset Axiom so much causing him to disappear.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
26-01-2011, 01:06 AM
he should be world man of the year instead, too good for a little backside of the world country like Australia.

Yesterday, Tuesday, it was reported how the sellout Palestinian negotiators were conspiring to sellout the Palestinian cause without informing their consitutents - a hero a hundred times over for what has been released.

I am sure many heros also have a dirty background - at least he did not cause the death of about 100,000 Iraqis in an illegal unnecessary war like Howard, Blair and Bush are responsible for.

Nor did he upset Axiom so much causing him to disappear.
This is a list of helpful hints. Please take heed A/c !!

a) if you think australia is a little backside of the world go back and live in your beloved palestine. I'm sure you'd prefer the lifestyle.

b) only morons worship people as heroes, having garnered only superficial knowledge of the indivdual (or 'hero') in question.

c) Stop crapping on about palestine. Continually dredging the subject up doesn't make you any more compelling. It just makes you supremely annoying.

d) You believe that many heroes have dirty backgrounds. It is quite possible that your just a poor judge of character, as opposed to there being a majority of role models strictly of disreputable personalities.

e) axiom ??? when was it proven that someone actually upset axiom ???

another fail on your behalf !!

f) your debating skills suck.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-01-2011, 02:08 PM
that's a splendid idea !! lets award australian of the year to a guy currently under investigation for sexual assault.

your an idiot a/c.
Actually the "sexual assault" charge against Assange is a joke.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
28-01-2011, 03:16 PM
Actually the "sexual assault" charge against Assange is a joke.

I know but at least wait until he's acquitted. That would seem sensible as opposed to lauding the man as 'Australian of the Year' who hasn't yet beaten the charge.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-01-2011, 03:56 PM
I know but at least wait until he's acquitted. That would seem sensible as opposed to lauding the man as 'Australian of the Year' who hasn't yet beaten the charge.
lauding the man as 'Australian of the Year' is a stupid idea by itself, regardless of the charge. Don't forget who came up with this idea!!

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
28-01-2011, 04:26 PM
lauding the man as 'Australian of the Year' is a stupid idea by itself, regardless of the charge. Don't forget who came up with this idea!!

Its hard to forget the freak that came up with this declaration since the comment spawned a splitting of the thread and an unsavoury barrage of invective from monseignor a/c.

And wasn't that a joy to behold !!

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2012, 02:50 PM
Assange lost his appeal about extradition (http://www.theage.com.au/world/assange-loses-final-appeal-20120530-1zjfa.html)
I have little sympathy to the man, but the decision looks unjust to me.

However, the reaction of his fans/followers/supporter is quite amusing. This crowd firmly shares leftists believes (am I really surprised?). As such they can't bring themselves to call spade a spade: the Swedish feminazi* law (under which Assange is alleged) is, umm, well....., feminazi. No do they say that UK court is too politically correct to call that law a violation of human right and show Swedes the finger.
Instead they peddle wacky conspiracy theories that Sweden would extradite Assange to US.
Of course there are many details I am not aware of, but at first glance it looks like sheer lunacy.
1. Why would Sweden (with stronger socialist and anti-American traditions then Britain) be more likely then Britain (that has close security ties with US and might be peeved with Wikileaks itself) to extradite Assange to US?
2. Why would Britain be more likely to satisfy the extradition request from Sweden then the one from US?

I'd be interested to know the thoughts of Assange's fans (or anyone else) on the matter.




* There are a lot of crappy feminist policies. I reserve the term "feminazi" to the most outrageous and usage of the word is deliberate.

pax
31-05-2012, 05:57 PM
Instead they peddle wacky conspiracy theories that Sweden would extradite Assange to US.

You'll look a bit of a fool if it happens, won't you :)

I don't know that it is so wacky an idea. Extradition law is extremely complex. To me, it's entirely plausible that an extradition from the UK might be possible under rape allegations but not possible under conspiracy allegations. I also think the argument that the UK is more able to withstand pressure from the US to be quite plausible. Will it happen? I have no idea, but the whole Sweden business is very, very strange and the only thing I am absolutely sure of is that we don't have the full story by a long way.

There is a discussion here, the veracity of which I would have no idea: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WUKJA



I'd be interested to know the thoughts of Assange's fans (or anyone else) on the matter.

(not a particular fan)


I reserve the term "feminazi" to the most outrageous and usage of the word is deliberate.

I think that's a word (among many of Jono's invention) that should be consigned to the rubbish bin permanently. When feminists start murdering millions of innocent people you can justify it.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2012, 11:57 PM
Posts moved

Further discussion of the term "feminazi" (including that Jono didn't invent it) has been moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=14026)

Rincewind
16-08-2012, 11:06 AM
The Julian Assange case took a bizarre twist with Ecuador's foreign minister claiming that the UK has threatened to raid the London embassy to take Assange into custody. If true it shows the UK are clearly losing patience over Assange's protracted asylum bid, however it seems an odd threat if all Assange is wanted for is extradition to Sweden and so will probably fuel the theories of US motivation in the extradition.

If talk of the threat is exaggerated then it might be an attempt to leverage Ecuadorian nationalism to provide sufficient political support for Assange in Ecuador to make an asylum offer palatable.

Either way perhaps it means Ecuador will offer asylum but what that will mean could be a diplomatic crisis in UK-Ecuador relations (over the offer and furthermore if the UK intend to carry out the threat) or else Assange could become under effective house arrest at the Ecuador embassy in London.

Ian Murray
16-08-2012, 01:14 PM
...or else Assange could become under effective house arrest at the Ecuador embassy in London.
Say Ecuador grants asylum and appoints Assange as its ambassador to Australia, or Bhutan, or wherever (to strengthen its ties to the anti-smoking lobby). Assange then leaves the London embassy for Heathrow with a diplomatic passport, and is free and clear.

pax
16-08-2012, 01:51 PM
The Julian Assange case took a bizarre twist with Ecuador's foreign minister claiming that the UK has threatened to raid the London embassy to take Assange into custody. If true it shows the UK are clearly losing patience over Assange's protracted asylum bid, however it seems an odd threat if all Assange is wanted for is extradition to Sweden and so will probably fuel the theories of US motivation in the extradition.

If talk of the threat is exaggerated then it might be an attempt to leverage Ecuadorian nationalism to provide sufficient political support for Assange in Ecuador to make an asylum offer palatable.

Either way perhaps it means Ecuador will offer asylum but what that will mean could be a diplomatic crisis in UK-Ecuador relations (over the offer and furthermore if the UK intend to carry out the threat) or else Assange could become under effective house arrest at the Ecuador embassy in London.

Even more remarkable is the UK response, which not only did not deny the threat, but spoke about the UK's obligation to extradite and the "legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK".


"We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador. The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we remain determined to fulfil this obligation.

"We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture.

"Throughout this process we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK.

Agent Smith
16-08-2012, 05:09 PM
Yes - it seems they're not going to let him leave for Ecuador under any circumstances.

ElevatorEscapee
16-08-2012, 08:31 PM
Well, it's encouraging that Ecuador has taken a leaf out of John Howard's book and treats its asylum seekers just as Australia intends to do ...

1) Process them offshore,

2) Unnecesarily waste months to process their claim, (Ecuador - we'll wait until the Olypmics are over... yeah right!!)

3) Keep them detained, without charge, indeterminantly in limbo.

I know a way to solve this:

They should send Julian Assange to a Refugee Processing Centre in Nauru, or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea! That will "discourage" other people who wish to "leak" stuff over the Internet.

Rincewind
17-08-2012, 12:34 PM
Well, it's encouraging that Ecuador has taken a leaf out of John Howard's book and treats its asylum seekers just as Australia intends to do ...

1) Process them offshore,

2) Unnecesarily waste months to process their claim, (Ecuador - we'll wait until the Olypmics are over... yeah right!!)

3) Keep them detained, without charge, indeterminantly in limbo.

I know a way to solve this:

They should send Julian Assange to a Refugee Processing Centre in Nauru, or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea! That will "discourage" other people who wish to "leak" stuff over the Internet.

To be fair Ecuador had little option on points 1 and 3 which were brought about by the UK's obligation to extradite Assange. Regarding 2, waiting until the Olympics were over was probably not a bad thing anyway from the point of view of global coverage of Assange's situation, but to compare that situation (detained for 2 months in a Foreign Embassay) with asylum seekers in Australian detention centres, who are held for years on end without charge, somewhat trivialises their plight.

ElevatorEscapee
18-08-2012, 12:13 AM
To be fair Ecuador had little option on points 1 and 3 which were brought about by the UK's obligation to extradite Assange. Regarding 2, waiting until the Olympics were over was probably not a bad thing anyway from the point of view of global coverage of Assange's situation, but to compare that situation (detained for 2 months in a Foreign Embassay) with asylum seekers in Australian detention centres, who are held for years on end without charge, somewhat trivialises their plight.

I agree!!!

Julian Assange is a stoat!

The Ecuador government shouldn't let wave-loads of Australian 'asylum seekers' "queue-jump" the immigration process simpy by showing up at their embassies on foreign lands!

If you let one Aussie through, then you turn on the tap! There is no telling how many Australian asylum seekers will flood the Ecuador border!

Ecuador nees to nip this in the bud and "turn back the stoats"!

Ecuador needs to send a strong message to break the business model of these Australian people smugglers! They need to let them know that there is no advantage in seeking diplomatic asylum at the London embassy than going through the normal immigration procedures!

Ecuador needs to protect her borders and "turn back the stoats"!

Assange's home country doesn't even want him, so he doesn't even have the chance to "go back to where he came from"!

Honestly Baz, if you genuinely believe that my comparison of Assange asylum seeking somehow trivialises the plight of refugees seeking asylum in Australia, then I think you've missed my point - which was quite the opposite.

People who seek asylum in Australia generally don't have the money to pay for QCs and high proflie media PR, and are destined for the doldrums due to almost unbelievably stupid populist federal government policies based on fear mongering and polling of stupid people in shopping centre malls.

In any case - the proposed "Laberal" focus on less than 1% of immigrants who arrive by boat, spending upwards of $1 Million of taxpayers money for each new asylum seeker for each new offshore facility is sadly a reality, and not something I've made up to trivialise peoples' plights... as taxpayers, we're all paying through the nose for this ruthless, inhumane nonsense. Hey for that price, we can save everyone some money and give them a million each, and bring them here on Fairstar the Funship! ;)

By using the Assange circumstance, I only sought to hold up to a mirror to that which is being proposed by our parliamentarians at the moment, and thereby, illuminate it's riduculousness...

Maybe people don't like what they see in the mirror? ;)

Rincewind
18-08-2012, 11:20 AM
Honestly Baz, if you genuinely believe that my comparison of Assange asylum seeking somehow trivialises the plight of refugees seeking asylum in Australia, then I think you've missed my point - which was quite the opposite.

I suspected that was true, but the satire was so good that I was in two minds. This simply means it was well executed. :clap:

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2019, 08:21 PM
Almost seven years later (!) (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/11/julian-assange-arrested-at-ecuadorian-embassy-wikileaks):

Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder was granted refuge in 2012 while on bail in the UK over sexual assault allegations against him in Sweden. Assange, 47, who has spent almost seven years at the embassy after seeking refuge there to avoid extradition to Sweden, was detained after the Ecuadorian government withdrew his asylum, Scotland Yard said. He was held on a warrant issued by Westminster magistrates court on 29 June 2012 when he failed to surrender to the court.

MichaelBaron
11-04-2019, 09:28 PM
So how is freedom of speech going in Western Democracies?
Lets see what happens to him now :)

MichaelBaron
11-04-2019, 10:54 PM
I wonder what someone would say if its Chinese government that would want to arrest him

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2019, 12:21 AM
So how is freedom of speech going in Western Democracies?A lot better than in China - he was arrested for skipping bail, not for anything he said.

MichaelBaron
12-04-2019, 12:53 AM
A lot better than in China - he was arrested for skipping bail, not for anything he said.

Or yes....and of course USA wants him deported on some light charges? :). So if Chinese dissidents are accused officially for non political activities rather than political ones e.g. tax evasion - shall we assume the case is not political? or in case of China it is political but in case of Assange its not?

Can you please remind me how he got into legal troubles in the first place? :).

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2019, 02:29 PM
Or yes....and of course USA wants him deported on some light charges? :). So if Chinese dissidents are accused officially for non political activities rather than political ones e.g. tax evasion - shall we assume the case is not political? or in case of China it is political but in case of Assange its not? Can you please remind me how he got into legal troubles in the first place? :).The US wants to charge him with downloading classified information. I don't think even Assange would deny he did that; the argument is over whether he was justified. On the other hand, China is imprisoning and torturing Australian children just because they are Uighur Muslims.

MichaelBaron
12-04-2019, 06:12 PM
The US wants to charge him with downloading classified information. I don't think even Assange would deny he did that; the argument is over whether he was justified. On the other hand, China is imprisoning and torturing Australian children just because they are Uighur Muslims.

So we are in a position to judge how justified Chinese and US claims are? I do not think Chinese government says ''we want to arrest you because you are Uighur Muslims'' I am sure this is not the official reason...so what is it that makes us so confident about legality of one and illegality of the other?

MichaelBaron
12-04-2019, 06:14 PM
If Chinese government claims that actions of some Uigurs undermine ''law and order'' in the country? Should we dismiss the government's claim as invalid/undemocratic but accept the US claim?

At very least we should be consistent in what we stand for when providing support to our citizens overseas.

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2019, 06:27 PM
So we are in a position to judge how justified Chinese and US claims are? I do not think Chinese government says ''we want to arrest you because you are Uighur Muslims'' I am sure this is not the official reason...so what is it that makes us so confident about legality of one and illegality of the other?What possible crimes could have been committed by the Australian children aged one to six who are being detained by China! And China is detaining hundreds of thousands of Uighurs in secret facilities. Are they all guilty of crimes? When will they be given open trials?

Assange is facing a maximum penalty of five years in the US for a crime he has not denied. I've never commented on the legality of the US claims - that will be decided if Assange is extradited and tried for that crime. There's no comparison.

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2019, 06:28 PM
If Chinese government claims that actions of some Uigurs undermine ''law and order'' in the country?Including one year old children?

Ian Murray
13-04-2019, 09:41 AM
The US wants to charge him with downloading classified information. I don't think even Assange would deny he did that; the argument is over whether he was justified. On the other hand, China is imprisoning and torturing Australian children just because they are Uighur Muslims.

The US charge is conspiracy to download classified data - he did no downloading himself. The case revolves around whether Assange is a journalist publishing news or a cyberthief, and involves press freedom. It will take years to be decided, assuming the UK allows extradition.

MichaelBaron
13-04-2019, 11:20 AM
The US charge is conspiracy to download classified data - he did no downloading himself. The case revolves around whether Assange is a journalist publishing news or a cyberthief, and involves press freedom. It will take years to be decided, assuming the UK allows extradition.

Its not about the nature of the charges but how the global community acc3epts that USA charges against Assange are acceptable but Chinese charges against various individuals are not. International relations are full of double standards.

MichaelBaron
13-04-2019, 11:55 AM
Including one year old children?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/19/yes-the-u-s-sometimes-supports-warlords-and-dictators-so-when-should-we-stop/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1f8ace2e782d

Relevant read

Patrick Byrom
13-04-2019, 01:58 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/19/yes-the-u-s-sometimes-supports-warlords-and-dictators-so-when-should-we-stop/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1f8ace2e782d
Relevant readHow is that relevant to the detention of a one year old child by China?

Patrick Byrom
13-04-2019, 02:04 PM
Its not about the nature of the charges but how the global community acc3epts that USA charges against Assange are acceptable but Chinese charges against various individuals are not. International relations are full of double standards.As Ian points out, the US has applied for extradition (which may not be granted) and is following the standard procedure. Assange will be given a trial if extradited. On the other hand, China regularly imprisons people without trial.

Ian Murray
13-04-2019, 02:35 PM
Its not about the nature of the charges but how the global community acc3epts that USA charges against Assange are acceptable but Chinese charges against various individuals are not. International relations are full of double standards.

"Chinese charges against various individuals"!. We are talking here about the forced detention and re-education (i.e. brain-washing) of more than a million Chinese citizens because they are Muslims. There is absolutely no comparison with legal charges and subsequent open trial of Assange, if he gets to trial

MichaelBaron
14-04-2019, 12:29 AM
As Ian points out, the US has applied for extradition (which may not be granted) and is following the standard procedure. Assange will be given a trial if extradited. On the other hand, China regularly imprisons people without trial.

Having a trial does not mean that the trial will be fair. Think about charges coming up against Assange from Sweden and how ''timely'' those were!

Ian Murray
14-04-2019, 07:40 AM
Having a trial does not mean that the trial will be fair. Think about charges coming up against Assange from Sweden and how ''timely'' those were!

The presumption of innocence, trial by a jury of peers, prior discovery of evidence, the right to confront accusers, the right to legal representation, all make a trial as fair as possible. Such rights don't apply in Chinese trials, of course.

MichaelBaron
15-04-2019, 10:58 AM
The presumption of innocence, trial by a jury of peers, prior discovery of evidence, the right to confront accusers, the right to legal representation, all make a trial as fair as possible. Such rights don't apply in Chinese trials, of course.

Your argument is based on the assumptions that al of the legal proceedings are going to be fair. Do you seriously think it is impossible for a Chinese government (people's government) to have a jury? Re ''as fair as possible'' Once again, we are applying our Western standard in a foreign country.

Patrick Byrom
15-04-2019, 03:15 PM
Once again, we are applying our Western standard in a foreign country.But you criticised Brunei for executing homosexuals. If you can apply your "Western standard" to Brunei, then Ian can apply his "Western standard" to China.

Ian Murray
15-04-2019, 03:22 PM
Your argument is based on the assumptions that al of the legal proceedings are going to be fair. Do you seriously think it is impossible for a Chinese government (people's government) to have a jury? Re ''as fair as possible'' Once again, we are applying our Western standard in a foreign country.

Our rule of law is designed to ensure that legal proceedings are fair and the rights of those accused are protected. Of course the Chinese judiciary system could do likewise, but the simple fact is that it does not. Human rights are not restricted to westerners, they apply to everyone.

No sign of change in China’s deeply flawed criminal justice system (https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2054456/no-sign-change-chinas-deeply-flawed-criminal-justice-system)
South China Morning Post
14.12.16

A critical difference in the tenet of criminal proceedings between the rule of law and absolute government is that the former might prefer having a fugitive rather than a miscarriage of justice, whereas the latter would rather produce injustice than a fugitive.

China’s record conviction rate of more than 99.9 per cent last year helps explain why its criminal justice system has produced so many misjudgments....

The courts should be the final protection for the people from the arbitrary power of officials, but the party sees them as a tool for social control. The party chief, President Xi Jinping (習近平), vowed in 2015 that the law would be a “knife held firmly in the hands of the party”.

The party is now stifling the type of advocacy that would help bring justice to innocents ..., as the government has stepped up a crackdown which saw hundreds of rights lawyers and activists jailed last year....

Access to Justice in China (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/access-justice-china)
Council on Foreign Relations

...The State Department also says the Chinese criminal justice system is biased toward a presumption of guilt, “especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases.” According to its latest report, the conviction rate for first-time criminal offenders was above 99 percent in 2006. The findings were among widespread human rights violations in China alleged by the State Department. Chinese officials challenged the U.S. report, saying the government safeguards human rights. They also accused the U.S. government of numerous human rights violations of its own.

The U.S.-based watchdog group Human Rights Watch says in its World Report 2008 that “torture, especially at the pre-trial stage, remains prevalent.” The report says law enforcement agencies “sharply limited and violated” the rights of criminal defendants in 2007 and defense lawyers faced chronic difficulties in representing their clients.

Human rights groups say China’s Public Security Bureau continues to make wide use of the reeducation-through-labor system, including for political and religious dissidents. The system allows police officials to detain people for three or four years without trial or the approval of a prosecutor. This helps police circumvent the entire criminal justice system to sentence people to “something that looks very much like a labor camp,” says Cohen. ...

MichaelBaron
15-04-2019, 10:25 PM
https://www.facebook.com/thejuicemedia/videos/257626418365963/UzpfSTEwNDM1NDgwNDA6MTAyMTcyNTczMDY2NzgzOTI/

Ian Murray
16-04-2019, 08:39 AM
https://www.facebook.com/thejuicemedia/videos/257626418365963/UzpfSTEwNDM1NDgwNDA6MTAyMTcyNTczMDY2NzgzOTI/

Exactly!

ElevatorEscapee
13-06-2019, 09:42 PM
Jailed for 11 months for skipping bond (I reckon the self-imposed exile where he didn't look after the cat and he was locked up in the Embassay might have been worse).

US now has begin formal extradition procedures.

What now for Assange?

MichaelBaron
13-06-2019, 10:20 PM
Jailed for 11 months for skipping bond (I reckon the self-imposed exile where he didn't look after the cat and he was locked up in the Embassay might have been worse).

US now has begin formal extradition procedures.

What now for Assange?

Of course, USA is ''Not China'' so I assume we can expect fair democratic treatment :). Or can we not?

Patrick Byrom
13-06-2019, 11:26 PM
Of course, USA is ''Not China'' so I assume we can expect fair democratic treatment :). Or can we not?In several cases, China didn't bother with extradition and just kidnapped people from Hong Kong. So the US treatment of Assange is definitely an improvement on China.

antichrist
14-06-2019, 12:40 AM
Now with info that WikiLeaks was leaking info on behalf of Russia to sabotage USA's elections and to ultimately to assist Russia I have turned against Assange. It's funny because that for a few decades of the first half of my life I was falsely accused of being pro-Russian/commo. Now the right wingers are supporting Russian sabotage and ultimate dominance in blind loyalty to Trump and the left wingers are supporting an independent America. How the world has changed.

MichaelBaron
14-06-2019, 07:19 PM
In several cases, China didn't bother with extradition and just kidnapped people from Hong Kong. So the US treatment of Assange is definitely an improvement on China.

Or yes, what a fantastic improvement :).
Democracy in action.

Democratic Tramp vs. Undemocratic Chinese leadership....

Patrick Byrom
14-06-2019, 09:25 PM
Or yes, what a fantastic improvement :). Democracy in action. Democratic Tramp vs. Undemocratic Chinese leadership....Legal extradition vs kidnapping.