The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Assange: has Gillard got the guts? > Comments

Assange: has Gillard got the guts? : Comments

By Kellie Tranter and Bruce Haigh, published 20/12/2010

The Australian government should stand-up for Julian Assange against the US.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Three points to make here: the first is that Julian Assange has not been charged by the US with anything. He's been charged with rape in Sweden.One wonders whether the same level of manufactured outrage would apply if a similar charge was laid against Shane Warne. I doubt the authors are experts in the details of Swedish criminal law; the second is that Julia Gillard, before she lectures the US on anything, might care to explain to the Australian people whether or not she has lied to us about the circumstances of her assumption of the Prime Ministership from Kevin Rudd. Wikileaks suggests she was engaged in a 12 month period of undermining rather than a last minute reluctant decision to save the nation; and the third point is the complete absence of international supporters for Bradley Manning, whose IT skills enabled Wikileaks to access US diplomatic cables and who is in jail. At the moment, his only supporters are his family and I doubt we will see Julian galloping to his rescue.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Monday, 20 December 2010 9:23:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The bullying and authoritarianism of the Left in full flower.

"...Gillard...delivered an ill considered and prejudiced response, devoid of independent thinking or moral compass...", unlike Tranter and Haigh's.

"...Gillard should be made to keep a close eye on extradition proceedings..." By whom?

"Australia's message to the United States should also be equally clear:

...that objective international bystanders [Tranter and Haigh?]... can't see that Assange has broken any law,[especially not rape, right?] and that any action undertaken by police, prosecutors and judges is free, and seen to be free, from pressure, influence, advice or instruction from any government ...[but not from Tranter and Haigh]...For the sake of the Alliance Gillard should be telling the US to get its house in order and fast." Tranter and Haigh support the US alliance? Who knew?

The Swedish legal system should be free from the type of interference Tranter and Haigh want Gillard to apply to the United States?

And most astonishing of all: "The only response we ever seem to see from the US is patronising condescension, with wanton aggression and the diplomacy of bullies in the face of threat, defiance and solid criticism. We saw that after September 11." September 11 was "defiance and solid criticism"? Thanks for that, it's good to have your lunacy on the record.

While decrying the use of state power against Assange and Al Qaeda, Tranter and Haigh want the Australian government to bully Sweden, the UK and the US. Figures.

"The citizens of the world see WikiLeaks as a beacon of hope for truth and freedom to flourish and for people empowerment; Assange's guilt or innocence is entirely irrelevant to that perception."

Who elected Tranter and Haigh to speak for the "citizens of the world"? What pathetic vanity.

It will be wonderful to anticipate Tranter's feminist response if Assange is convicted of rape, which, according to news reports of "leaked" Swedish legal documents, seems a real possibility. Or should he be above such decisions by Swedish - or any other - courts?
Posted by KenH, Monday, 20 December 2010 12:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard

You certainly went to bat on Bruce and Kellie. A bit harsh I thought.
But to address their original question. ‘Has Gillard got the guts?’

The short answer is no.

Mind you, if she checked with Shorten, to continue his right wing support in the case of a spill, (please , please have a spill) and Arbib to see if it is approved by the Americans, (who better to discuss that point), then Danby to see what her Melbourne Zionist masters want her to do, (after he returns from Israel ), I am certain they would all tell her in no uncertain terms to keep her nose out of things that don’t concern her. Stick to her areas of expertise... making statements without thinking, implementing policies without investigation and shoring up her support (i.e. assassinating any competition) before the public realize what a feckless PM she is and beg for a replacement. Or just as bad, allowing Abbott , by default, to become the preferred Prime Minister.

Impossible, even in the silly season..

The elements of refreshing disclosure in the Assange Wikileaks, show clearly that the US has a level of arrogance and disdain in its dealings with the rest of the world. Other than the Arbib disclosures, perhaps the most damaging to the Labor Party, the right wing activities of a not too bright power broker and his quest for power, grovelling to a country that has little interest in him or Australia (other than a desperate need for military bases on our shores) and who employs specialists to suck information out of people like Arbib, all day long....the CIA

The comments on Rudd on the other hand, were somewhat as expected.
However, Rudd, to his credit, at least sheeted home the problem with the Wilileaks world availability as an indication of the lack of US security, displaying a level of arrogant complacency. He also mentioned last week in Israel, the unmentionable, that the Zionist state should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Did he check with Gillard first?. Hardly.

He may have real intelligence and merit after all
Posted by rexw, Monday, 20 December 2010 1:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“that he has done nothing wrong.”

The assumption that Assange is a typical Australian larrikin doing no wrong is false. The charges brought by the Swedish authorities are serious and should not be trivialised while we await the judgment of judicial authorities.

More important is the activities of Wikileak. I agree this has some features in common with investigative journalism. Investigative journalism is a much honoured section of the profession and is universally applauded.

Assange on the other hand is a man with a mission. He has considerable computing and literary skills to further his task. His object is to destroy the American administration and financial institutions. His method is to publish on a gigantic scale stolen or hacked information. That other democratic governments or societies may be simultaneously hurt, is collateral damage.

Assange clearly regards America as evil in the Popperian sense. Assange believes that successive administrations are, “the enemies of the open society.” A man driven by such a delusional system is dangerous. Assange is not responsible to any other body or organisation that can be sued in law such as a newspaper. He is a self-appointed guardian of our society- in other words a megalomaniac.

Assange has cocked his finger at the Americans, no wonder that they are angry with him. As yet charges have not been formulated in American law. If however and as seems likely he is complicit in the stealing of information. If he makes computing equipment, hacking methodology and finance available to like-minded individuals; then there is a good case to be made against him
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 20 December 2010 2:09:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Assange is not all he seems.His leaks are pointed at a particular the premotion of more wars.The US State Dept first approves all media leaks of Govt documents.Why did they allow the leaks about which they now feign outrage?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 20 December 2010 8:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question is not so much did Assange do wrong to the two women, as why when the initial charges were dropped, were they resumed by another prosecutor - and was it at the behest of the US? The constant denials of any link between the two victims and the CIA don't cover the issue of America exerting undue influence in the jurisdiction of another country's justice system - something they are well capable of demanding, and getting.
Posted by mudpuppy, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 9:33:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy