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
heraldabc    Comment on International Law.   12/19/2010 10:35:43 PM
1. Treaties are International Law. The enforcement mechanism is either abrogation or war.
2. Extradition treaties are subject to domestic politics and domestic law among the nations that are parties to the extradition treaty. In this specific legal case Australia is not jurisdiction involved and neither is the US....yet.
 
That means the only current interested parties are Sweden and the UK. Only when the Swedes get Assange (that is if they ever do) could the Americans invoke their extradition treaty with Sweden and try to make a case that Assanje committed an act of theft.
 
Even then I'm not sure he can be extradited. The precedent is the New York Times/Daniel Ellsberg case  Based on that... I'm not sure that he can be prosecuted under American law at all. It would have to be a crime against Australia that the Wiki-leaks releases could be prosecutable for treason or espionage or theft of official secrets, and so far as I can tell, Assanje was very careful not to reveal any Australian  secrets or break Australian laws.   
 
As an American, I have no love for Assanje, but as a matter of law, my opinion is that the Russians are more of a danger to Assanje (for embarrassing them) than any American legal action, international or otherwise will be to him..       

H.
 
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Hairy Man, Aussiegunner, et al.   12/20/2010 12:00:51 AM

Steady, lads.  Let?s be gentlemen.  It is one thing to disagree, but it is something else entirely to be disagreeable.  Let?s get back to the topic, shall we?

I apologize for not responding sooner, but it is the cold and flu season here, and I have been under the weather lately.   Hairy Man, I am also a police officer, and like you that has influenced many of my thoughts on current events.  You stated that you feel interfering with a boy is more serious that interfering with a government.  I will not dispute the fact that sexual crimes against children are devastating for both the victims and their families?, but I think it is a mistake to dismiss the ramifications of interfering with a government?s classified material.  If the release of one piece of classified material leads to the death of our soldiers or innocent civilians, has the significance of the crime suddenly been elevated?  Do we have to wait until that happens to take the moves to stop Assange and his ilk?  Much of police work involves responding to crimes that have already occurred, but if I have the ability to stop the robber from entering the store and placing lives in danger, then I am duty bound to do so. 

True, Americans are not the only ones aggrieved by the release of sensitive documents, but so what?  As an American I am concerned that he is placing my family and my fellow citizens in danger.  If the citizens of other countries that have been stung by Assange don?t have the same reaction, then bully for them.  Frankly, it pisses me off. 

Are calls for the assassination or life imprisonment of Assange extreme?  Perhaps, but given the implications of his actions, you could make the case.  Personally, I would like Assange to simply stop what he is doing, and would like to see laws passed that would punish anyone that published stolen classified material.  Until then, I think it is a useful intellectual exercise to discuss at what point guys like Assange can be viewed as a clear and present danger to American interests.  If we cannot stop him through legal means and he refuses to stop releasing sensitive documents that could result in the deaths of Americans, what should we do then?

Actually, Hairy, you make a very reasoned argument for moderation??..at least until the very end.  You indicate that you do not believe Assange?s actions are worthy of severe punishment, but then say that your view on that would change if you found out Australians were being placed at risk.  This is pretty much the prime example of a double standard.  Americans ARE being placed at risk, and that?s why Americans like me want him stopped. 

Aussiegunner, you seem to indicate that Assange should be protected under journalistic freedom, but you know as well as I do that freedoms are not absolute.  There are limitations.  If a news organization published someone?s personal credit card and bank information and then showed pictures of them in the shower there would be criminal and civil penalties.  Also, there is a significant difference between information that is ?leaked? and information that has been obtained illegally, just as there is a difference between obtaining property that is given away by someone legally entitled to have it, and obtaining it from someone that stole it or was n
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    My 2 cents   12/20/2010 11:52:06 AM
In my opinion this is what should happen:
 
Private Manning is found guilty and executed by firing squad...this send a clear message to all gov't employees that classified US Gov't information is not to be sold or given away...period.
 
Julian Assange should just be found dead from "An apparant burglary" gone bad...another clear message sent.
 
The State Dep't idiot who allowed a PC on the network with the capability to copy information should be fired, imprisoned and deprived of all gov't pension...and so should his immediate supervisor.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       12/20/2010 5:28:10 PM
And what are you going to do to all the editors around the world that has published information from Wikileaks?  They are doing exactly what he is doing, but no hue and cry about them.
 
Incidently I dont agree with what Wikileaks has done, although from what I can see a lot of it neeed to be published.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       12/20/2010 9:47:48 PM

1. Treaties are International Law. The enforcement mechanism is either abrogation or war.

2. Extradition treaties are subject to domestic politics and domestic law among the nations that are parties to the extradition treaty. In this specific legal case Australia is not jurisdiction involved and neither is the US....yet.

 

That means the only current interested parties are Sweden and the UK. Only when the Swedes get Assange (that is if they ever do) could the Americans invoke their extradition treaty with Sweden and try to make a case that Assanje committed an act of theft.

 

Even then I'm not sure he can be extradited. The precedent is the New York Times/Daniel Ellsberg case  Based on that... I'm not sure that he can be prosecuted under American law at all. It would have to be a crime against Australia that the Wiki-leaks releases could be prosecutable for treason or espionage or theft of official secrets, and so far as I can tell, Assanje was very careful not to reveal any Australian  secrets or break Australian laws.   


 

As an American, I have no love for Assanje, but as a matter of law, my opinion is that the Russians are more of a danger to Assanje (for embarrassing them) than any American legal action, international or otherwise will be to him..       





H.


 


I was using the Australian/US extradition treaty as an example, mainly because I couldn't be bothered hunting down the US/Swedish or US/UK ones. However, I'm pretty sure that the same principles would apply. No country is going to sign up to a treaty which gives the other the right to demand that the first country send somebody who allegedly committed a crime extra-territorially, without the government in the second country having the final say on the matter. It is just common sense.
 
As for whether there is scope for treason charges against him in Australia, I think there might be as he revealed strategically important targets here. I don't mind if the Australian government makes a test case of him as he is our citizen and I know he would get a fair trial in the High Court here. If the American's got hold of him they would just stick him in front of one of their kangaroo court's, um, I mean "military tribunals" where the outcome would be predetermined. I don't mind that sort of treatment for a guy like David Hicks, who was found armed and fighting against America and it's allies (including Australia), that was just war and I frankly think Hicks should have been kept locked up without trial as a PW until the GWOT is over or until he dies, whichever comes first.
 
However, to act against a media person in this manner in an instance where the rights and wrongs are far from clear would be unacceptable.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       12/20/2010 9:49:03 PM

Julian Assange should just be found dead from "An apparant burglary" gone bad...another clear message sent.

 

 

... and perhaps you might find employment with Robert Mugabe?

 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       12/21/2010 1:58:21 AM




1. Treaties are International Law. The enforcement mechanism is either abrogation or war.



2. Extradition treaties are subject to domestic politics and domestic law among the nations that are parties to the extradition treaty. In this specific legal case Australia is not jurisdiction involved and neither is the US....yet.



 



That means the only current interested parties are Sweden and the UK. Only when the Swedes get Assange (that is if they ever do) could the Americans invoke their extradition treaty with Sweden and try to make a case that Assanje committed an act of theft.



 



Even then I'm not sure he can be extradited. The precedent is the New York Times/Daniel Ellsberg case  Based on that... I'm not sure that he can be prosecuted under American law at all. It would have to be a crime against Australia that the Wiki-leaks releases could be prosecutable for treason or espionage or theft of official secrets, and so far as I can tell, Assanje was very careful not to reveal any Australian  secrets or break Australian laws.   






 



As an American, I have no love for Assanje, but as a matter of law, my opinion is that the Russians are more of a danger to Assanje (for embarrassing them) than any American legal action, international or otherwise will be to him..       













H.






 






I was using the Australian/US extradition treaty as an example, mainly because <snip>
 

However, to act against a media person in this manner in an instance where the rights and wrongs are far from clear would be unacceptable.

The US justice system especially its military justice system does not dispense unfair justoce.
 
If it did, then there would be no Gitmo. Those men held there instead would be dead.
 
Assange if we Noriegaed him would wind up in the Federal 4th Circuit Court, a civil court that would be the site for his trial. He would get a fair trial.    
 
As to the justice that Assange actually deserves? If he is chargeable under Australian law, (and I disagree here, as I do umder American law, precisely because he received  information as a third party and did not actively soliticit it to sell for profit or use it to levy war. All he did was publish what a disgruntled  seditionist gave him.) then charge him. I would be very surprised if he was charged under Australian law. I don't see how he can be charged for theft of American duplomatoc cables in an Australian court. He did not steal them and his defense could say that Australia should not have trusted such secrets to such an ally who was so lax with them. Its a legitimate defense.   
  
H.. 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       12/21/2010 9:36:00 PM

The US justice system especially its military justice system does not dispense unfair justoce.

 

If it did, then there would be no Gitmo. Those men held there instead would be dead.

 

Assange if we Noriegaed him would wind up in the Federal 4th Circuit Court, a civil court that would be the site for his trial. He would get a fair trial.    

 

As to the justice that Assange actually deserves? If he is chargeable under Australian law, (and I disagree here, as I do umder American law, precisely because he received  information as a third party and did not actively soliticit it to sell for profit or use it to levy war. All he did was publish what a disgruntled  seditionist gave him.) then charge him. I would be very surprised if he was charged under Australian law. I don't see how he can be charged for theft of American duplomatoc cables in an Australian court. He did not steal them and his defense could say that Australia should not have trusted such secrets to such an ally who was so lax with them. Its a legitimate defense.   

  

H.. 


Military justice systems are not even designed to be fair. They are in place to enforce discipline in the force in question and fairness is a distinctly secondary consideration. What's more, the officers presiding aren't nearly as qualified to judge complex matters as a judge, who does it all the time, is. Military justice systems should be limited for use for military discipline, not for show trials of captured prisoners of war/enemies of the state.
 
BTW, Gitmo was just a PW camp, they have those in wars all the time without the pretense of dispensing justice. Had the terrorists just been kept as normaly PW's they wouldn't have been killed, they would probably just be kept for longer.
 
As for whether or not he could be charged in Australia, I don't know, but if they were going to charge him it wouldn't be for stealing cables. Rather, he might be able to be charged for treason for revealing secrets that could aid an enemy of Australia during a war (GWOT). I don't know if the Australian government can make a case for it, but if they can then they should rather than slandering him for undertaking "illegal" acts.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Smitty   12/21/2010 9:48:47 PM
When I was talking about extreme hypocracy I was referring to all those American's currently kicking up a fuss about Assange, not just you.
As for your argument that Americans overseas are left to their fates when they commit a crime, that may be true for non-political crimes such as drugs or sex crimes, but I would suggest to you that if an American was charged with a political "crime" of the nature that Assange has supposedly committed, all hell would break lose and the US Government would be going in to bat for them.
 
Anyway, the whole fuss about Assange recieving stolen cables is pure hyperbole. You are a cop, what is the typical punishment for recieving stolen goods in your state? A year or two in prison at the most perhaps? Do you seriously think that the US is going to bother having Assange extradited for the sake of that?
 
The US Government didn't even attempt to charge the journalists who published the Pentagon Papers with recieving stolen goods. Rather they attempted to charge them under the Espionage Act and got slapped down by the Supreme Court, who said that journalists had a right under the First Amendment to publish such information that comes to them (a 6-3 decision). Incidentally, the Pentagon papers had a higher security classification, Top Secret, than anything that Assange has published.
 
I would suggest to you that the current fuss is being amplified by the fact that Assange is a foriegner, with the people advocating judicial or even extra judicial killing of him applying standards that haven't been applied to American journalists in the past. That my friend is extreme hypocracy.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       12/22/2010 12:00:08 AM
You seem not to understand the American legal system, military and civil or how the men held at Guantanamo are legally defined in that system.
 .  

The US justice system especially its military justice system does not dispense unfair justice.

If it did, then there would be no Gitmo. Those men held there instead would be dead.

Assange if we Noriegaed him would wind up in the Federal 4th Circuit Court, a civil court that would be the site for his trial. He would get a fair trial.    

As to the justice that Assange actually deserves? If he is chargeable under Australian law, (and I disagree here, as I do under American law, precisely because he received  information as a third party and did not actively solicit it to sell for profit or use it to levy war. All he did was publish what a disgruntled  seditionist gave him.) then charge him. I would be very surprised if he was charged under Australian law. I don't see how he can be charged for theft of American diplomatic cables in an Australian court. He did not steal them and his defense could say that Australia should not have trusted such secrets to such an ally who was so lax with them. Its a legitimate defense.   

H.. 






Military justice systems are not even designed to be fair. They are in place to enforce discipline in the force in question and fairness is a distinctly secondary consideration. What's more, the officers presiding aren't nearly as qualified to judge complex matters as a judge, who does it all the time, is. Military justice systems should be limited for use for military discipline, not for show trials of captured prisoners of war/enemies of the state.

BTW, Gitmo was just a PW camp, they have those in wars all the time without the pretense of dispensing justice. Had the terrorists just been kept as normally PW's they wouldn't have been killed, they would probably just be kept for longer.

As for whether or not he could be charged in Australia, I don't know, but if they were going to charge him it wouldn't be for stealing cables. Rather, he might be able to be charged for treason for revealing secrets that could aid an enemy of Australia during a war (GWOT). I don't know if the Australian government can make a case for it, but if they can then they should rather than slandering him for undertaking "illegal" acts.


It is quite true that the US UCMJ is designed to promote military discipline, and that an American soldier does not have full 'political' rights, but....   
 
1. This is a look at the US system of military justice.
 
 
 
Unlike some other military systems, the defendant has the right to counsel, has the right to face accusers, and a right of CIVIL appeal. Note that the Guantanamo detainees ate not handled there?
 
They are handled here.
 
Note the definition of intent.
 
 The Manual for Military Commissions
Executive Summary
January 18, 2007
Today, the Secretary of Defense is submitting to Congress a comprehensive
Manual for the full and fair prosecution of alien unlawful enemy combatants by military
commissions, in accordance with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Manual is
made up of three separate sections: The Rules for Military Commissions, the Military
Commission Rules of Evidence, and the Crimes and Elements. The Rules for Military
Commissions set forth the procedural rules for Military Commissions. The Military
Commission Rules of Evidence provide evidentiary rules to govern the admissibility of
evidence at trial. The Crimes and Elements section lays out the crimes punishable by
Military Commission and the elements of those crimes.
 
This Manual is the product of a tremendous interagency effort. Principally
military judge advocates and attorneys from the Departments of Defense and Justice,
using the Manual for Courts-Martial as a guide
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics