Alice Thermopolis,

Thank you for the link in your post of Tuesday, 4 January 2011 at 4:54:24 PM, to the list of 20 articles (with their respective by-lines) by David Burchell. I'm sure in due course I may find that compilation helpful, but could you be more specific as to from which of the articles the quote you have posted came? There is a limit to the amount of time available with which to come to grips with the WikiLeaks issues.

You recite what is presumably Burchell's line:

"Through no achievement of his own
other than a chance acquaintance
with a bullied junior security analyst
[, Assange] ...."

In doing so you appear to abet what, from my admittedly limited knowledge as to the WikiLeaks phenomenon, appears to be Burchell's misrepresentation of Assange as having had any link whatsoever with the 'bullied junior security analyst' (by whom I presume is to be meant PFC Manning) prior to the downloaded diplomatic cables coming into the hands of the WikiLeaks organisation. Such misrepresentation is a matter of significant public interest, for it assists in placing the spotlight upon Assange the (fallible?) man, rather than upon the weaknesses in the (US) system of control of such classified information as so self-evidently exist.

Inquiry as to possible weaknesses in the system of control of such information would normally be a standard term of reference for those conducting any competent investigation into such a breach of security. US Senator John McCain, who has described the leaking of the cables as the most serious breach of (US) national security, would, in his earlier days as a naval officer, undoubtedly himself have performed investigations under such terms of reference.

Perhaps it would be a good time to re-read Jonathan Ariel's 7 December 2010 OLO article 'United States vs WikiLeaks', http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11336&page=0

What and/or who's interests are being served by the seeming attempted minimization of the significance of the (US) security breach that lies at the heart of this whole matter?

The question of integrity must be a consideration for the role of Australian of the Year, surely.

There are just too many unanswered questions in relation to Assange,

Australian or not.

It is good to be informed on the activities of governments throughout the world, in particular the scheming of Hilary Clinton, the ego trips of Senator Arbib and the submissive attitudes of the current PM Gillard and her lack of judgement on the Assange Wikileaks comments and her “stupid” comment to the ‘Dorothy Dix’ question from Josh Frydenberg, Jewish Member for Kooyong, on the statement by Kevin Bracken referring to the now widely held belief, worldwide, that 9/11 was a conspiracy..

Assange told Al Jazeera newspapers last Wednesday in an interview, “WikiLeaks will release cables concerning Israel, the Second Lebanon War and the Mabhouh assassination in the next six months”,
Six months? Why six months? . Assange said “only a small number of documents related to Israel have been published so far because newspapers in the West that had exclusive rights to publish the material were hesitant to publish sensitive information about Israel”, reported in the Qatari newspaper The Peninsula, citing the Al Jazeera interview.

One has to ask who gave the “exclusive rights” to those ‘selected’ newspapers? Assange?

Ethical or just a crass commercial reality?

The 2500 cables yet to be published on the activities of Israel / Mossad in the world’s troublespots may be the result of the insidious domination of the world’s press by the likes of Murdoch and the Zionists who are withholding negative stories of Israel’s activities. However, is it also Assange who is filtering the cables on instructions from a ‘foreign ‘intelligence service’, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political scientist and geostrategist, who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.

He stated this quite definitely. Who would question Brzezinski compared to Assange?

Australian of the Year? Hardly. It is unlikely that Assange should even be considered for this honour.
Find a friendly cricketer, one who has scored more than 25 runs.

Now that’s really Australian

What a foolish suggestion!

If he was, diplomats around the world would accept that our Govt
has no problem with private and sensitive diplomatic information
being leaked. They in turn, would treat our dimplomats as
lepers and make sure that no sensitive information is passed on
to Australians. Hardly smart thinking.

Honourable actions and Assange are mutually exclusive.

It is the leaks that are not being reported by Assange, conveniently, that make the highly regarded Wikileaker, highly regarded by some in these columns, that is, a most unworthy choice for any honour other than as a co-conspirator in world terrorism by his exclusion of matters that have been carefully filtered by his organisation. As stated above by a previous writer, Assange blames the Zionist media for choosing not to report anything detrimental to Israel, but world opinion has now formed a contrary view, well documented.

As stated in Veterans Today, ‘How many Americans have been killed by CIA-recruited terrorists; how many Israeli-designed and built IEDs, planted by the same terrorists recruited by the CIA, all trained by India’s RAW, (an organization partnered and supported by Israel’s Mossad) and active in Afghanistan and against Pakistan, but also America’s primary ally in the region'.

Americans and Australians are being attacked too, by Israeli-built IED’s, the weapon of choice. The truth is out there as Mr. Assange knows only too well, all part of regional destabilization involving tens of billions of dollars in serious drug trafficking and corruption of every kind imaginable.

So when is Mr. Assange going to bring down his wall of secrecy and start telling the truth, regardless of those countries that he is currently protecting.?

In the meantime, the naive efforts to make Assange ‘Australian of the Year’ seem a waste of effort, to say the very least, honourable behaviour being a requirement, one would have hoped.

Hi Forrest Gumpp

Here's the direct link to David Burchell's article and source for my quotation:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/julian-assanges-romantic-fraud/story-e6frg6zo-1225969777840

"Millions of dollars may be spent, we are told, on the high-profile legal team that will propel Assange's defence against serious sexual allegations in Sweden, allegations that have been burlesqued by his rock-chick supporters, much in the manner of Roman Polanski. Meanwhile, according to a report by CBS's Joshua Norman, a mere $20,000 has been passed on by Wikileaks to Manning's lawyers, out of an appeal set up by the website to fund his defence. For want of these funds, it seems, Manning's case has not even proceeded to its first pre-trial hearing.

Where, you might wonder, are the placard-waving crowds protesting Manning's innocence, or proposing to turn him into a culture hero? Where are the celebrity-backers, the groupies, the stentorian professors of linguistics? But then, Manning's sunglasses, if he has any, are bound to be merely military-issue. And he is unlikely to cut a very romantic figure in court."

For security reasons, am unable to comment publicly on the other issues raised in your post.

Alice (in Wikiland)

Well said, Alice.
Thanks for reminding all the groupies that without the leaks themselves, Assange would be swanning around Sweden up to all sorts of mischief but certainly having fun, a non-entity, no pending court case and the ensuing publicity, no fame, no crowds, no misguided support and certainly co consideration to be "Australian of the Year". What a blow!

Instead of supporting the crowds waving banners, spare a thought for Pfc Manning, seven months in isolated captivity, perhaps drugged to extract some kind of confession of Assange's complicity in the document collection, being subject to the vilest forms of psychological torture, (no one better at it than the US military; Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay, renditions here, renditions everywhere and on) and perhaps seeing on TV, if allowed, the cult-like following of the man who has gained the most from all the "leaks", selective as they may be to suit his long term objectives. A 'user' with a commercial eye for a big profit.

The chance of that poor soldier surviving such treatment is very slim indeed. No wealthy properties for him to relax on, no naive propositions for him to become a local American hero as with Assange and his misguided 'Assange for Australian of the Year' groupies. He will slowly dissolve into a forgotten memory, Private First Class 'what's-his-name'?

Spare a thought for him in between the drum-beating and flag-waving.
He's the one deserving of support, but getting none.