Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How do Australians really feel about Julian Assange?
Panther    12/6/2010 10:24:25 PM
I don't know if this is stirring up a hornet's nest and i do apologize for this not being related to the military, so please forgive me. But my curiosity has been piqued by an Australian buddy from another forum saying that the Aussie view of him is only positive and lovely? Is this true? I do have a hard time believing that to be the case, but then again, what do i know? I figured i would get a second opinion if it isn't too much trouble or won't stir up any of the same!?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain       12/17/2010 7:49:49 PM


I just love the first response to that article underneath so much that I will reprint it here in full.
"Man dates consenting adult of the opposite sex. Kisses and affectionate correspondence exchanged. Girl doesn't wish to pursue relationship but bears no malice or ill will towards suitor. So what's the story?
You quote the words of a 'gossip' merchant in your attention grabbing headline thus; "The 'creepy, lovesick' emails...". Yet the girl in question says: 'It was like, fine, whatever. He wasn't creepy about it, and he didn't try anything weird.' So, basically your so-called 'story' is not really a 'story' at all, but a piece of inane drivel designed as an attempt by the controlled corporate media to damage Mr Assange's reputation and public standing on a drip, drip basis. If you can't kill the message - kill the messenger. People are getting just a little fed up with the failure of the 'Media' - so called 'Free Press' to hold the Establishment political masters to account."


 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       12/17/2010 7:52:10 PM



Those laws are operational beyond our borders. exactly the thing you suggested nobody but the US does.

 

And espionage laws do not discriminate about national borders.


They apply across boarders to our own citizens. The US is trying to apply their laws to a foriegn citizen operating in another country, something it has no right to do.
Anyway, what it really comes down to is whether the Swedes and the Brits have the balls to say no to them and to refuse to extradite him.

 
Quote    Reply

BoHG       12/17/2010 9:51:16 PM






I just love the first response to that article underneath so much that I will reprint it here in full.


"Man dates consenting adult of the opposite sex. Kisses and affectionate correspondence exchanged. Girl doesn't wish to pursue relationship but bears no malice or ill will towards suitor. So what's the story?

You quote the words of a 'gossip' merchant in your attention grabbing headline thus; "The 'creepy, lovesick' emails...". Yet the girl in question says: 'It was like, fine, whatever. He wasn't creepy about it, and he didn't try anything weird.' So, basically your so-called 'story' is not really a 'story' at all, but a piece of inane drivel designed as an attempt by the controlled corporate media to damage Mr Assange's reputation and public standing on a drip, drip basis. If you can't kill the message - kill the messenger. People are getting just a little fed up with the failure of the 'Media' - so called 'Free Press' to hold the Establishment political masters to account."







You are starting to look a bit hypocritical here, surely all secrets are bad? or is it just the secrets that Mr Assange doesn't like that we should be leaking? (a great opportunity to use a heap of the cliched crap that is used to defend Mr Assange coming right up!) The truth shall set you free. Only people with something to hide need secrets. If he is doing nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. It didn't kill anyone. Its all just low level gossip. The people who published it never stole it (a personal favorite that one). It is the truth and the truth never hurt anyone.
BTW, 33 year old man sending that sort of crap to a 19 year old is way creepy.
 
Quote    Reply

BoHG       12/17/2010 9:53:58 PM







Those laws are operational beyond our borders. exactly the thing you suggested nobody but the US does.



 



And espionage laws do not discriminate about national borders.







They apply across boarders to our own citizens. The US is trying to apply their laws to a foriegn citizen operating in another country, something it has no right to do.


Anyway, what it really comes down to is whether the Swedes and the Brits have the balls to say no to them and to refuse to extradite him.






When he is busy spying on them, they have every right to apply their laws, the fact that you don't like it doesn't change it.
 
re the extradition, and here we come down to it, you want political considerations to override rule of law, fine, at least you admit it.
 
Quote    Reply

BoHG       12/17/2010 10:29:42 PM







Those laws are operational beyond our borders. exactly the thing you suggested nobody but the US does.



 



And espionage laws do not discriminate about national borders.







They apply across boarders to our own citizens. The US is trying to apply their laws to a foriegn citizen operating in another country, something it has no right to do.

To save you a bit of time on the above, here is a current example of Australia, applying our laws, to a foreign citizen operating in another country, it seems our Govt feels we have a right to do this and our parliament passed the laws allowing it. Which begs the question, why do you feel the US doesn't have the right to do the same?
 
Australia will seek extradition of Christmas Island people-smuggling suspects
 
"Based on information gathered from the Flying Fish Cove survivors, Australian investigators have given Indonesian counterparts the names of three suspects and requested the arrest of at least one, an Iranian national."
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       12/18/2010 3:40:31 AM

You are starting to look a bit hypocritical here, surely all secrets are bad? or is it just the secrets that Mr Assange doesn't like that we should be leaking? (a great opportunity to use a heap of the cliched crap that is used to defend Mr Assange coming right up!) The truth shall set you free. Only people with something to hide need secrets. If he is doing nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. It didn't kill anyone. Its all just low level gossip. The people who published it never stole it (a personal favorite that one). It is the truth and the truth never hurt anyone.
 
BTW, 33 year old man sending that sort of crap to a 19 year old is way creepy.


And you are starting to look like somebody who would lie through his teeth to smear somebody he doesn't agree with. I have never said that the emails from Assange to the girl should never be published but you suggest that I think that. Point to where I said it or indeed where the quote that I made suggestted it? Let me make it easier, you can't because I don't think that.
 
What I do think is that emails from him to some girl, even if he was 33 and if she 19, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of Wikileaks. It is at best irrelevant reporting and at worst part of a smear campaign that people like you are happy to engage in. By all means go ahead and do so if you like, it is your right, but expect to be called to account for it.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Extradition   12/18/2010 4:10:05 AM
BoHG, you really don't know what you are talking about on the matter of extradition.   Firstly, there is no international law governing extradition so talking about the rule of law over political considerations is irrelevant. Extradition is governed by treaties between countries and those treaties typically do not require countries to deliver a foriegn national to countries that it has a treaty with. Rather, it is done at the discretion of the political authorities of the country where the person currently resides, under conditions outlined in the treaty. For example, here is the relevant clause from the the Australia/US extradition treaty:  
Article IV
 
When the offence for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State—
 
(a) if the United States of America is the requested State—the executive authority of the United States of America; or
 
(b) if Australia is the requested State—the Attorney-General of Australia,
 
shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offence committed in similar circumstances.      
 
 
So, as you can see extradition of such people is a political consideration. It comes down to the fact that no country can reasonably just set a law to apply across the entire World and then expect others to apply it. That would be a gross breach of the soveriegnty of the nations in question. The decision is a matter for the Governments in question.
 
You Indonesian people smuggling case is irrelevant, the people smugglers would have committed those crimes in Australian territory. However, if the Australian/Indonesian treaty is anything like the Australian/US (see Article 5) one then I would suggest that it is at the discretion of the Indonesian government as to whether or not it sends its own nationals to Australia.
 
In the Assange case the decision for the UK or Swedish government should come down to whether or not Assange's publishing of those cables that might undermine US and international security, outweigh free speech considerations and whether Assange is likely to get a fair trial in the US. I would suggest that he isn't going to so he shouldn't be sent to the US and that the US should just suck up the fact that it can't act against him. It's own State Department f*cked up in this instance so instead of scapegoating Assange for doing what thousands of journalists and internet activists would have done, the US should concentrate on getting it's own house in order.
 
 
 
 the example of the anti-people smuggling laws is irrelevant to this case, as was the example of anti-child sex laws. Those laws are applied to foriegn citizens, but only those
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Extradition - Correction   12/18/2010 4:14:00 AM
 I've just corrected a couple of things in this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BoHG, you really don't know what you are talking about on the matter of extradition.   Firstly, there is no international law governing extradition so talking about the rule of law over political considerations is irrelevant. Extradition is governed by treaties between countries and those treaties typically do not require countries to deliver a person who has committed a crime outside the territory of the country requesting them to do so. Rather, it is done at the discretion of the political authorities of the country where the person currently resides, under conditions outlined in the treaty. For example, here is the relevant clause from the the Australia/US extradition treaty:  
Article IV
 
When the offence for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State—
 
(a) if the United States of America is the requested State—the executive authority of the United States of America; or
 
(b) if Australia is the requested State—the Attorney-General of Australia,
 
shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offence committed in similar circumstances.      
 
link
 
So, as you can see extradition of such people is a political consideration. It comes down to the fact that no country can reasonably just set a law to apply across the entire World and then expect others to apply it. That would be a gross breach of the soveriegnty of the nations in question. The decision is a matter for the Governments in question.
 
You Indonesian people smuggling case is irrelevant, the people smugglers would have committed those crimes in Australian territory. However, if the Australian/Indonesian treaty is anything like the Australian/US (see Article V) one then I would suggest that it is at the discretion of the Indonesian government as to whether or not it sends its own nationals to Australia.
 
In the Assange case the decision for the UK or Swedish government should come down to whether or not Assange's publishing of those cables that might undermine US and international security, outweigh free speech considerations and whether Assange is likely to get a fair trial in the US. I would suggest that he isn't going to so he shouldn't be sent to the US and that the US should just suck up the fact that it can't act against him. It's own State Department f*cked up in this instance so instead of scapegoating Assange for doing what thousands of journalists and internet activists would have done, the US should concentrate on getting it's own house in order.
 
Quote    Reply

BoHG       12/18/2010 5:43:36 AM
For gods sake be a man and admit you were wrong, you strongly implied that it was wrong to publish the Assange / 19 yr old girl emails and there is no difference between the US wanting to extradite a non US cit from Sweden and Aust wanting to extradite a non Aust cit from Indonesia.
 
Re your blithering about extradition treaties, in both Aust and the US, international treaties have the force of law, google is nice but actual depth of knowledge is better.
 
The people smuggler committed no crime in Aust, you have no actual idea what he "would" have done (and try arguing what the accused "would have done" to a judge), the facts are that he loaded the people on a boat in Indonesia, if you were a grown up you would take this chance to admit that your position is not based on facts. clearly you won't do that.
 
The case for the UK is will they extradite Assange to be questioned over the sexual assault allegations raised and to the best of my knowledge, at this time the US has not made any attempt to extradite Assange from anywhere.
 
And then we run on with the 'blame the victim' followed by the 'lots of people do it' defence, you really should try running those in front of a judge some day, always good for a laugh.
 
But all can see that you are not swayed by the facts. I won't waste any further of my time educating you.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       12/19/2010 9:43:02 PM
BoHG,
You Sir are a liar and an idiot. Where the hell do you get off telling me that I "strongly implied" something that anybody who  can read can plainly see that I did not? At no stage have I suggested that anything shouldn't have been published, (ironically) other than those things that Assange published that have put lives at risk. Just because you repeat something that is untrue does not make it true, it just reflects badly on you.
 
As for your knowledge on extradition treaties, that is either a case of reading comprehension problems, a lack of knowledge/understanding or just more preparedness to lie through your teeth. The treaties have the force of law in the countries that they apply too but, and this is a very big but, the key clauses associated with crimes committed outside of the requesting nation's jurisdiciton are at the discretion of the political authorities in the nation recieving the request. That makes your comment about me supposedly prefering political decisions to the rule of law moot. The decision to extradite for an extra territorial crime is a political decision and is so legitimately, as any nation's political leaders have the right to make decisions with respect to their own soveriegnty.
 
As for your promise to not waste your time any further by discussing this matter, I hope you keep it though acknowledge your right to continue to write this dribble of you wish. You have added nothing of value to this discussion, because you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.
 
AG
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics