back to article Assange ambushes Australian Prime Minister on live TV

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard denied supplying information about WikiLeaks staff to the US government after founder Julian Assange confronted her on live television and suggested she be tried for treason. The ambush happened during an interview with the Australian leader aired live on that country's public network ABC …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Standard response

    > I honestly don't know what he's talking about, so I'm afraid I can't help him with full and frank disclosures,

    When confronted with a difficult question, politicians usually claim ignorance. This is quite a successful strategy as it's what most citizens think of them anyway.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Or...

      When confronted with someone accusing them of treason on national telly, most politicians say something along the lines of "What the hell are you talking about".

  2. Cameron Colley

    I fear for Bradley Manning and hope someone can help.

    The real hero in this has always been the guy who is under constant torture by the US. I'll admit to feeling like a failire and admitting the US war machine owns us all.

    1. Tim Bates

      And even if he did it...

      Is it worth killing the guy just so some embarrassed politicians can try to feel better?

      Wouldn't the better solution be to have politicians simply not say stupid things just because they think no one is going to find out (*cough* Gordon Brown *cough*)?

      (Yes I am aware some "current" military "secrets" were leaked, but surely details of military locations are detectable by the "enemy" using their eyes anyway - does it really make that much difference if some poorly armed rebels find out where the US camps are? Is this worth purposely taking a man's life?)

    2. Daren Nestor

      Hero?

      You mean the fool who committed treason (as well as a horrendous breach of trust) by releasing a whole pile of confidential information without a specific purpose in mind? So much of it was twaddle that it can't have been anything specific that motivated him...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Is this a troll?

        It's hard to see how you could have got more wrong statements in a single post.

        How did Assange commit treason? Did he leak Australian state secrets?

        Which brings us to the next point: what did Assange leak? Nothing. He published, along with a number of other organisations (none of which appear to be under house arrest), information provided by the traitor (yes he is, look it up), Manning.

        Which bring us to the final point, motivation: his motivation, as has been repeatedly discussed, is purely the releasing of data that is kept secret from the people who paid for it.

        It amazes me that anyone sides against the leaks. Such blind trust in your government and previous government (which, in the UK, we've just voted out...) is amazing.

        I'm considered an adult legally and yet the government still seeks to hide things from me. Why? Because they know I won't like what they're hiding.

        1. Dave Cradle

          @AC - Is this a troll?

          Rights and wrongs aside - it's hard to see how you could have got it more wrong.

          He clearly states he's refering to Manning, not Assange. :-)

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Bradley Manning committed treason, not Assange

          "How did Assange commit treason?"

          The poster you replied to was referring to Bradley Manning, not Assange.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Daren

        Technically the USA revolutionaries who began the fight for independence committed treason (plus they engaged in guerrilla warfae). Are you so quick to damn them?

      3. Cameron Colley

        RE: Hero?

        Yes, hero. He worked for a corrupt and murderous organisation bent on world dominance and the wiping out of anyone who they take a dislike to -- then he gave away their secrets knowing full well he may never leave a prison cell if found out.

        I would call him a hero for at least embarrassing the scum who control the USA.

      4. despairing citizen
        Headmaster

        Hero and Villan - point of view

        If you blow the whistle on your government breaching international law, does that make you a hero or a villan?

  3. It wasnt me
    Thumb Up

    Wow......

    Says i'm possibley the first post. A tenner says Ian M Gumby is here spouting bile in minutes. If he hasnt beaten me.

    1. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: Wow......

      "Says i'm possibley the first post. A tenner says Ian M Gumby is here spouting bile in minutes. If he hasnt beaten me."

      What interests me about your post is that it's pure argumentum ad hominem. No reference to the facts, or to the contents of his argumenta.

      I expect that sort of reply in playground situations, but where adult conceptions of law are concerned - and he's done a pretty good job of citing the statutes and the court data - you do yourself no favours. In fact you do him a big favour; anyone wanting to know the truth of the matter need not look in your direction, because it seems highly probable that you will engage in personal attacks, not an examination of the facts.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Re

        "What interests me about your post is that it's pure argumentum ad hominem. No reference to the facts, or to the contents of his argumenta."

        What interests me about your post is the early use of phrases such as "argumentum ad hominem" and "argumenta". This means I can safely skip to the next post, safe in the knowledge you talk cock.

        1. Scorchio!!

          Re: Re

          ""What interests me about your post is that it's pure argumentum ad hominem. No reference to the facts, or to the contents of his argumenta."

          What interests me about your post is the early use of phrases such as "argumentum ad hominem" and "argumenta". This means I can safely skip to the next post, safe in the knowledge you talk cock."

          Thank you for making my point for me; you show no sign of understanding basic concepts commonly used in assessing the value of someone's arguments (addressing/assessing the data rather than showering vitriol on the person articulating them) and you finish with suitably playground language.

          Now just you skip on to the next playground post (or a comic even) and read the childish personal comments that evidently satisfy you; be sure to avoid the facts of the matter or anything intellectually demanding that might require you to respond at a higher level than naming slang words for genitalia, or perhaps male domesticated fowl. You might reveal a lack of wit and knowledge if you responded to anything remotely taxing. As you indeed just have.

        2. Eponymous Cowherd
          Thumb Up

          Talk cock?

          Is that slightly higher than talking bollocks?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Hmm...

      While I don't agree with his sentiments all of the time, sometimes I do, mind - At least there is someone who bothers to comment outside the Commentard groupthink. Many subjects here have obviously been given up by anyone who doesn't comment from the "accepted point of view" and end up being something along the lines of disagreeing about who agrees the most. Discussion is all but dead in many subjects, just look at the comments on the following subjects, next time they come up:

      Religion

      Copyright

      Police related subjects

      Wikileaks

      Jullian Assange

      Banking/Financial Services

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: Hmm...

        "At least there is someone who bothers to comment outside the Commentard groupthink."

        Yeah. For me the first rule is subject matter rather than ad hominem attacks. Then original data/literature/material where possible, and so on.

        Usenet went the same way. You can view it through google groups. Be ready for the sound of the patter of tiny feet when you first view it. At least in the early days some degree of competence in DUN/network bindings and such was required, and that automatically disbarred the children. Now it's a matter of network cabling, or perhaps understanding the need for WPA2 (PSK) and how to use a simple web interface via network cabling to set it up. So it is that the lowest common denominator seeps in with its short sighted views on free downloads in every domain.

        Notice the absence of questioning why Obama now withholds US support for a no fly zone over Libya, while Russia in particular opposes it, remembering what it did in Chechnya and is doing in places like Dagestan, places I don't hear mentioned in here.

        Whilst these fools pray to St Julian people in Libya are losing their war for freedom, genuine freedom from a savage dictator who kills and tortures (using electrodes and sharp or blunt implements) those who oppose him and want their fundamental human rights. The difference in their human rights debate and ours? Decadence vs survival. http://sijill.tripod.com/victims/

        As to Julian and his like, this is just the beginning of the future of counter security measures on people like him: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12513315

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Hmm...

        "just look at the comments on the following subjects, next time they come up:

        ...

        Copyright

        ..."

        Woah, we're allowed to comment on Copyright related stories now? When did that happen? Normally commenting isn't allowed for stories covering copyright and piracy issues.

    3. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @ It wasn't me

      Wow.

      Unlike you, when I post its either to comment on topic, or to flame a commetard.

      Unlike you, I actually have a life out of here where I do real work for a living.

      The irony here is that while you don't like my opinion, you lack the ability to actually debate what I say and provide real historical facts to back up your statement.

      Now, I'll admit, I do make mistakes. Dan G. caught one mistake where I took one of the defense's arguments as fact because the claim had been reported on by many newspapers.

      Do your homework. You might learn something in the process.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a fool

    Does Assange really think he's going to gain favor from any government officials after risking the lives of operatives? Assange lives in his only distorted world but I expect he'll have some cellmates soon.

    1. Goat Jam
      Big Brother

      Risking the lives of operatives.

      So, Assange has risked the lives of operatives has he?

      Which ones? Names please, after all if Wikileaks has already outed them then you shouldn't have any trouble pointing us to where they did so, right?

      God some people are just too credulous for words, willing to accept any and all of the propaganda that is constantly being pushed out by the powers that be.

      No wonder the Nazis had it so easy, with useful idiots like Mr AC above to help them along.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Goat Jam

        Please try to understand: If someone holds a different opinion from you, that doesn't make them a Nazi collaborator.

      2. The Fuzzy Wotnot
        Happy

        @Goat Jam - Godwin in the first dozen or so posts!

        Quite an achievement on such an active subject, invoking Godwin so early!

      3. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: Risking the lives of operatives.

        "So, Assange has risked the lives of operatives has he?

        Which ones? Names please, after all if Wikileaks has already outed them then you shouldn't have any trouble pointing us to where they did so, right?"

        http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=9

        "He said that some leaks risked harming innocent people—“collateral damage, if you will”—but that he could not weigh the importance of every detail in every document. [...] A year and a half ago, WikiLeaks published the results of an Army test, conducted in 2004, of electromagnetic devices designed to prevent IEDs from being triggered. The document revealed key aspects of how the devices functioned and also showed that they interfered with communication systems used by soldiers—information that an insurgent could exploit. By the time WikiLeaks published the study, the Army had begun to deploy newer technology, but some soldiers were still using the devices. I asked Assange if he would refrain from releasing information that he knew might get someone killed. He said that he had instituted a “harm-minimization policy,” whereby people named in certain documents were contacted before publication, to warn them, but that there were also instances where the members of WikiLeaks might get “blood on our hands."

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351927/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-new-book-Afghan-informants-deserve-killed.html

        Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.

        The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'

      4. despairing citizen
        Big Brother

        Re: Risking the lives of operatives.

        Although the president brain took the fall, the US government blew the cover on one of it's own CIA handlers, just because her husband pointed out the falicies in the evidence being collected to go to war in Iraq.

        When I hear US politicians and government officials whining about operational security, I tend to think about pot and kettles, along with piss ups and breweries.(*)

        (*) if this information was so sensitive, why had they not implemented proper security controls?

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Afghan informants names and locations

        "So, Assange has risked the lives of operatives has he?

        Which ones? Names please, after all if Wikileaks has already outed them then you shouldn't have any trouble pointing us to where they did so, right?"

        Have a quick scan through Afghan mission reports on Wikileaks (or other sites that have collated Wikileaks information) and you will find names and locations of various Afghan informants.

  5. Morpho Devilpepper
    Flame

    No man is an island...or an entire nation.

    So, Gillard is a traitor to Australia for not protecting their own local Michael Moore wannabe and his flock from an angry world? When did Assange suddenly gain the rights and privileges to speak on behalf of the entire nation of Australia for his own personal purposes?? Seems to me Julian is rapidly becoming the Kim Jong Ill of the blogosphere. He's essentially a blogger with a fanclub and a God complex, not much else.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yup - and many sheep will follow

      What Assange has done is cleverly playing into the increasing suspicion that people have of their governments, and especially the "they will execute me" hysteria is a good example of that - there is really just about zero chance of that. It is just a desperate attempt to drum up some AU political support for his self inflicted problems, and by calling Gillard a potential traitor he has ensured that it won't happen.

      Any smidgeon of potential *diplomatic* support he may have been able to get (i.e. slightly outside the rule book) is now off limits - after all, Assange supporters could *cough* "expose" that too. So well done. Gillard rather dryly referred to Assange's behaviour - methinks she has his measure well and true..

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        Black Helicopters

        Not exactly...

        "Any smidgeon of potential *diplomatic* support he may have been able to get (i.e. slightly outside the rule book) is now off limits - after all, Assange supporters could *cough* "expose" that too. So well done. Gillard rather dryly referred to Assange's behaviour - methinks she has his measure well and true.."

        First Assange wasn't politically connected to have any 'slightly outside the rule book' help available. Nor was he rich or famous. Just infamous.

        Second. Despite his personal attack on Gillard, he will still be afforded the rights he has as an Australian citizen. That is when he loses his appeal, he can make a call to the Australian Consulate in Sweden and seek assistance.

        There's actually some irony in this... he has the freedom to be an ass, and the governments that he protests against will actually defend his rights to be an ass.

    2. KrisMac
      Thumb Down

      Your conclusions about the person may not be wrong, but your focus is on the wrong target

      I do not disagree that Mr Assange is his own worst enemy, but have you ever seen a time when government back-room dealings and underhanded hypocracy have been so thoroughly exposed?

      Mr Assange my not have done himself any favours, but he has certainly done the rest of us a lot of good by allowing us to see the slime that 'lead' us for what they really are.

      Focussing your rage on Mr Assange serves only to distract you from the real villians of the piece - those who have committed all the offences againt the world that Mr Assange has dug up and thrown in their faces.

  6. Johan Bastiaansen

    Not much else?

    Well, he did have that video of the helicopter in Iraq.

    And those not so top secret messages.

    And a God complex.

    1. IPatentedItSoIOwnIt

      And the little matter of...

      And all those scientists doctoring the climate change evidence.

      And a God complex

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Badgers

        Let's not

        give him more credit than he's due.

        WikiLeaks hosted mirrors of the climate emails but weren't the originators of the leak.

        1. Scorchio!!

          Re: Let's not

          "give him more credit than he's due.

          WikiLeaks hosted mirrors of the climate emails but weren't the originators of the leak."

          Indeed and, whilst we are about the matter, let's also remember that there are several sources (either 3 or 4, I forget which) of climate data, such that the East Anglia dataset can be abandoned without affecting the strength of argument from the remaining datasets; the world's climate is changing, there is a human factor, and we can reverse at least some of it.

          The false arguments about the 'hockey stick' graph depend for their strength on examining those data in isolation from the full set, going back to when records began; when the latter analysis is performed the 'hockey stick' section of the graph sticks out prominently.

          Assange et al. could also have devoted some time to debunking the 'global warming fraud' nonsense, including the exception taken by some participants in the Channel 4 documentary to false extrapolations taken from their remarks, and a number of other egregious misuses of the data and arguments in the area as a whole. That includes the hockey stick abuse, which is the most egregious and flawed use of data that it's ever been my privilege to see, outside of Harriet Harman's manipulation of female vs male pay rates and female vs male unemployment in the recent recession, even when contacted by the head of the ONS and a senior female rep there from.

  7. The Original Ash
    Black Helicopters

    In other words...

    "I don't recall."

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    A politician tell the truth? - Heavan Help Us!

    Q: How do you know if a politician is lying?

    A: They open their mouth and speak.

  9. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    No man is an island...or an entire nation ..... until they are able and SMART Enabled

    "When did Assange suddenly gain the rights and privileges to speak on behalf of the entire nation of Australia for his own personal purposes?? " ..... Morpho Devilpepper Posted Tuesday 15th March 2011 23:25 GMT

    Whether Gillard is a foreign agent and traitor is something which intelligence gathered and/or transmitted and received will no doubt in due course, answer, but surely here was Julian Assange just asking a pertinent and impertinent question of someone, Frau Gillard, who admits to exercising the rights and privileges to speak on behalf of the entire nation of Australia for their own personal purposes, for if not her own personal purposes, will they be foreign and alien to her if she considers them to be a national entity cloaked in a political identity.

    Obviously we would all wish to see what the available intelligence tells us of the matter ...... but knowing politicians as well as people know politicians, what do you imagine are the chances of them having told the truth on the matter in their answer to the question? Slim chance or no chance? Is there a third option to be realistically offered?

  10. mhenriday
    Pint

    Committing treason by proving the US government

    with information about Australian citizens ? Mr Assange seems to have forgotten just who is running the Empire of which Australia constitutes a part (that, of course, is why, despite geography, Australia is said to be a part of the «West»)....

    Henri

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      The Real McCoy ...... an Elusive Scarlett Pimpernel

      Quite so, Henri. Politically incorrect Blighty became Uncle Sam's rent boy whenever they lost their Intelligence Mojo with the appointment of a series of useless station heads who are and were more sycophantic sub-prime ministerial gatherers of third party intel rather than valuable gold standard diamond source material. And now they reap the whirlwind of the stupidity they have sown.

      'Tis though an ever increasingly expensive mistake to easily correct with SMART Applications of Intelligence Source for that is where At Risk Investments will take flight to, to safeguard their reputations and businesses.

      And whether SAIS are Sourced Primarily from or for Eastern or Western Bases, is entirely dependent upon what region would nurture the Greater Intelligence Feed with its SMARTer Immaculate Needs.

  11. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Happy

    @Morpho Devilpepper

    "When did Assange suddenly gain the rights and privileges to speak on behalf of the entire nation of Australia for his own personal purposes??"

    Well nations *do* claim the right to speak for their citizens and *supposedly * one of the benefits of *being* a citizen is that you will be protected from foreign governments basically *demanding* to have you handed over *without* evidence of an *actual* crime.

    FYI one chunk of the US headless-chicken response was the realization that

    1) He's *not* a US citizen.

    2) Wikileaks is *not* based in the US

    3)They *publish* stuff (which comes under the 1st amendment in the US, but see 2) they don't pay people to steal stuff for them.

    The response of some US politician was less "sabre rattling" and more dummy throwing from their prams.

    Basically the case would probably be nearer to the "Pentagon papers" case of files leaked to Jack Anderson, rather than Watergate.

    IIRC The Pentagon blew the same smoke (Lives put at risk, opinions should remain secret forever etc) and wanted his arrest too.

    I'd hoped the US under Obama would be *slightly* less mad than under the W but I guess there are still too many nut jobs in office (and too many more looking to get elected).

    1. Morpho Devilpepper
      FAIL

      @John Smith 19

      You need to understand that:

      (1) Assange making the accusation of treason means that it's his expectation that the entire democratic process at work in the free world must defer to his rather biased decree.

      (2) International law does not require that every wingnut fringe hacktivist agree with it in order to be subject to it. And there's no such thing as a right to break the law.

      (3) Assange may not pay people to procure illicit data, but he does demand payment from news agencies in exchange for early access to the data his cronies release, and he openly denounces those who refuse to play his payola game. Corrupt much?

      All politicians everywhere sabre-rattle. It's called vote-pandering. They're expecting their voter base to pat them on the back for their rather impotent venom directed at the "bin Laden du jour." That doesn't mean that the appropriate punishment involves jeopardizing diplomacy worldwide for the sake of sh!ts and giggles (or some rather subjective Guy Fawkes-esque idea of vigilante justice).

  12. tiggertaebo

    Bored now.

    Geez - Will the CIA just quietly black bag the guy already? Assange is like some kind uber-troll who seems to take the youtube comments approach to the real world and I'm sick of hearing from him and about him.

    1. The Fuzzy Wotnot
      Joke

      Yeah!

      Nail the sod! Jesus is he ever going to stop trying get attention of the moronic populace who are quite happy to absorb the mass-media drivel drip-fed to them every day? Is he ever going to stop banging on about the utter madness that those we elected and pay salaries to, get up to?

      Jeez you'd think the guy was on some kind of crusade to make sure we don't all become sheep and become just a little more aware of how the really works behind that smoke screen put up by the faceless corps and Gov body's!

      While we're on it, I am sick and tired of hearing about all the good Nelson Mandela has done. Don't get me started on Dr Martin Luther King, on some king of ego trip fighting for equal rights was he? Blacks demanding the same quality of life as whites?! It's an outrage! Rosa Parks? If you wanted a seat, get off the bus, it probably have broken down anyway! Emiline Pankhurst? WTF do women need the vote for, eh? Waste of rate payers money, they could have spent that money hanging people! I wrote to my local MP, here you go "Why oh, why oh, why oh, why oh, why oh why....", that's as far as I got but it's coming on, don't you think?

      ( Apologies to Mark Steel for pilfering from Mr Cul-de-Sac! )

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Yeah!

        Julian Assange is not Martin Luther King, although I'm sure he'd be very flattered by the comparison.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Joke

          @Sarah Bee

          "Julian Assange is not Martin Luther King"

          And can I point out that the Martin Luther King you're no doubt referencing is not Martin Luther King, but Dr Martin Luther King Jnr ;p

          1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

            Re: @Sarah Bee

            Stick that pretend tongue out at me again and you'll lose it, chum.

          2. Cthonus

            Not only but also

            @AC @Sarah Bee → #

            Posted Wednesday 16th March 2011 14:42 GMT

            And can I point out that the Martin Luther King you're no doubt referencing is not Martin Luther King, but Dr Martin Luther King Jnr ;p

            So is "Julian Assange is not Mr Martin Luther King" less accurate than "Julian Assange is not Dr Martin Luther King" ?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Cthonus

              " So is "Julian Assange is not Mr Martin Luther King" less accurate than "Julian Assange is not Dr Martin Luther King" ? "

              Only as accurate as "Goblins are not Elves". Ultimately, it's irrelevant. Figures who have inspired others by standing up to perceived authority - Dr Martin Luther King Jnr, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, for instance have not really had anything in common other than showing their contempt for the status quo which perpetuated great injustice. In this light Julian Assange could be classed as an inspirational figure (as most publicised and outspoken member of Wikileaks) whether you like him on a personal level or not. His flagrant disregard for the usual media etiquette of bowing and kowtowing to powerful governmental or corporate interests raises the hopes of people around the world who feel powerless in the face of such oppressors of liberties.

  13. Clyde

    the good Ms Gillard

    Don't forget Ms Gillard is a pommie imigrant, and of the same political persuasion as our erstwhile Blair. So you could expect the same type of attitude and responses from her as we've seen from him.

  14. Ian Michael Gumby
    WTF?

    Wow.

    If Wikileaks had proof, I would hope that they actually released the documents backing up his claim.

    The fact is that there are articles in the press where the Australian Government was cooperating with the US investigation as well as conducting their own investigation. There were even articles in the Australian press where some politico claimed that Aussie troops in Afghanistan were put in harms way because of Wikileaks.

    The Aussie's PM's response rings true. She probably didn't have knowledge of any information sharing. That would occur at a much lower pay grade and wouldn't need her approval because there are treaties and agreements about information sharing already in place. Also that if he faced the Death Penalty and Assange was in Australia, he wouldn't be extradited. That's true for pretty much most of the world and even in the states the death penalty is going away.

    So how's his appeal going? He filed it and no response from the Brits?

    I am disappointed in ABC because of their cheap stunt. I wonder who's going to lose access to the PM?

    You know that things always happens in 3s. 1) Charlie Sheen, 2) Gilbert Gottfreid getting the Axe and now 3) Assange making an Ass of himself.

    Lets face it. If you're going to ambush your own PM, you'd best have relevant dirt and not make a wild arse suggestion that she'd ever be tried on treason. Maybe if the boy hadn't been home schooled he might have learned something.

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      MSM are Guilty of Hosting and Fronting Political Idiots .... Daytime Cannon Fodder/Program Fillers ?

      "Lets face it. If you're going to ambush your own PM, you'd best have relevant dirt and not make a wild arse suggestion that she'd ever be tried on treason." .... Ian Michael Gumby Posted Wednesday 16th March 2011 10:04 GMT

      An interesting question, IMG, whenever one considers the going to war on a false premise which the evidence Chilcot is poring over, has proven. Is madness and stupidity and delusions of grandeur any defense against a charge of treason, or just a slippery soapy excuse for the charades in politics and chambers and in the Matrix ...... where Nothing is Real and Everything is Virtually Controlled Remotely.

      "..and now 3) Assange making an Ass of himself." ..... That had me wrily smiling as we await the Law and Justice to do their thing, which has too oft for it not to be warranted and a comfortable fit, been also likened to an Ass ...... and even once famously/infamously, to a Banana.

  15. 42
    Thumb Up

    Great stuff

    Cant wait to see it on iview when I get home.

    GO Julian, a modern day hero

  16. tkioz
    Thumb Up

    fair go

    To be honest, seems like a fair reply, I'm not one of her big supporters, in fact I don't like her, but she answered fairly here.

  17. Charles Manning
    Paris Hilton

    Poor little narcissist

    Haven't been in the headlines recently, have we?

    <- Perhaps she can squeeze out a tear for you.

  18. Turtle

    Very Florid Symptoms

    The kind of florid narcissism now being exhibited by Assange has been observed before; the symptoms can sometimes prove lethal to the sufferer.

    Hopefully they will prove so in this case, because this kind of self-absorbed self-righteousness *deserves* to have fatal consequences for him.

  19. bugalugs

    Locally reported as

    Prime Minister 1, JA 0

    I think it was his tie.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Assange is a tit

    It'd be great if he wasn't. but he is. Shame.

  21. Nick Galloway

    Delusional

    When is Julian Assange going to come to the realisation that he is not the messiah and by playing a criminal 'game' with some ladies in Sweden simply opened the door to the world realising he is just a naughty boy. Someone who thinks by 'liberating' government secrets in the interests of the public good needs removal from the gene pool. He is a dangerous crank and he should be locked up for the public good. Governments should protect the interests of the majority not maniacs like Assange.

    1. Mike G
      Thumb Down

      Who's the maniac?

      Governments locking people up without due process is never in the interest of the majority, unless you think that society would be better off emulating Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

      It's cranks like you, with your secret desire for a police state, and to disappear people you don't agree with, that are truly dangerous and delusional.

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: Who's the maniac?

        "Governments locking people up without due process is never in the interest of the majority, unless you think that society would be better off emulating Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

        It's cranks like you, with your secret desire for a police state, and to disappear people you don't agree with, that are truly dangerous and delusional."

        "Cranks"? A fine use of the argumentum ad hominem; attempt to destroy the credibility of your interlocutor by the use of the sorts of labels applied by the very secret police whom you appear to abhor. Oh how noble. To say nothing of the fact that the OP nowhere mentioned a desire for a police state, though it merits observation that this very technique that you employ of smearing people has a noble lineage, going back through Gordon Broon, Tonibler, the dram of 1984 through to the original bad bastards of the Russian revolution, the vanguard of the proletariat.

        Assange should have been locked away for a 10 year mandatory sentence in respect of his crimes the first time around, when he was convicted on 24 counts for, amongst other offences:

        1) stealing passwords from US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon;

        2) for hacking computers at two universities;

        3) hacking computers at two telecommunications companies;

        4) hacking computers to monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into *his* criminal activities.

        The judge made the mistake of allowing Assange's defence to cloud his judgement, harking on his difficult childhood. After the slap on his wrist was administered Assange demonstrated a depth of insightlessness that should have had people watching him very carefully:

        "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution".

        Granted he would have been released in 2001 - perhaps earlier for good behaviour - but his movements would have been appropriately restricted and probably his access to computers would have been in some way controlled, thus reducing the probability that he would reoffend in this way. Indeed, he learned to keep things at arms length, as we see now, arranging for dispositions to allow him with a little credibility to say that he was merely the recipient of information from anonymous sources.

        Make no mistake Assange is a convicted criminal and with good reason. Criminal records rarely occur without good reason, never mind 24 convictions in one sitting, and criminal behaviour rarely occurs in isolation. In the current case his upbringing and its emphasis on not following the sort of rule following behaviours required in a social setting speak volumes.

        Given that offenders almost invariably have a developmental profile (in fact the judge pointed in this context to Assange's childhood), I will not be surprised to see him convicted in Sweden, I will not be surprised to see the allegations borne out as veridical. If he is convicted I expect a lot more information to tumble into the public domain, starting with the woman who at the very early age of 16 mothered his son, information that will give the lie to his seemingly insightless and arrogant behaviours and attitudes, both in his private and his public life. In the case of the latter I need only point to his overweening anger over the spread of Wikileaks files, and his apparent belief that they were 'his' (so the thief was robbed, uhuh), and the contemporaneous mention of a pay wall, along with his forthcoming biography and his vast salary which is in the region of £80,000.

        All along Bradley Manning's defence fund received what, £15,000? No, I suppose it would not do to be seen to give any more than that. After all, people might get to thinking that there is an Assange-Manning connection. Can't have that. No, let the wolves have him, in much the same way as the book of Assange indicates:

        http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=9

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351927/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-new-book-Afghan-informants-deserve-killed.html

        Collateral damage.

  22. Gannon (J.) Dick
    IT Angle

    Rude

    This sounds like American politics circa 2000. It will suck for twenty years then things will get better. That was the American experience anyway. Oz might be slower to get back to normal.

    Say, anybody need a .NET Programmer with 50 years experience ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Pint

      @rude

      Man I didn't know .NET had been around that long.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    flag waving jerks

    I'm fed up of all the sanctimonious crap about "we're the good guys" which is used to justify why the US, UK etc. need to keep all these secrets.

    We're not keeping the world free, as evidenced by all the cretinous middle east dictators we sell guns to, train, prop up and occasionally intervene militarily to protect or even install.

    Stop chummying up to the world's mass-murdering scumbags and maybe you wouldn't have any underhand and embarrassing secrets to have to protect.

  24. Chris Hunt

    Presumably Assange would have approved...

    ...if the Aussies had just *leaked* whatever information they had about him and his pals, without concern for who might read it.

  25. Bernard M. Orwell
    Grenade

    A reply to Gumby.

    "If Wikileaks had proof, I would hope that they actually released the documents backing up his claim."

    Yes. Agreed. Don't make such claims without proof, Julian. If you have such evidence, lets all see it, then we'll know whether our politicos are indeed all worthless liars or whether you are just a media tart. (See Gumby? I occasionally agree with you on some points...now...lets move on....)

    "The fact is that there are articles in the press where the Australian Government was cooperating with the US investigation as well as conducting their own investigation...."

    It's in the newspaper so it must be fact? Well, thats a leap. Especially for someone who made the claim not so long ago on a thread about Bradley Manning that if one doesn't have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE of something that one is not qualified to comment. I trust that these newspapers all have such first hand knowledge and aren't simply regurgitating news collected by other third-party agencies. After all, if they didn't have such first hand experience then we can't really count their opinions.....sorry...news articles, by your standards, as accurate, can we?

    "There were even articles in the Australian press where some politico claimed that Aussie troops in Afghanistan were put in harms way because of Wikileaks."

    Has this un-named politico presented their evidence, or is this a claim without proof like Assanges too

    "The Aussie's PM's response rings true. She probably didn't have knowledge of any information sharing..."

    Oh! it SOUNDS right? That's fine then. Must be true. Y'know, old chap, I think Julian SOUNDS right too. Must be true. Again, I think we need people to present evidence, as you suggested, before we make such profound leaps to conclusions.

    "That would occur at a much lower pay grade and wouldn't need her approval because there are treaties and agreements about information sharing already in place."

    Wow! Your understanding of modern political structures is astounding! (Before you start, I think you ought to know that I work inside government in an....informed...position and I *DO* know how governments function internally). A senior politician not being held accountable for the work of their "lower pay grades" is not an acceptable excuse. They are ultimately held accountable for everything in their purview.

    "Also that if he faced the Death Penalty and Assange was in Australia, he wouldn't be extradited. That's true for pretty much most of the world and even in the states the death penalty is going away."

    This is true, and again we are agreed. All this nonsense about death penalties being applied is ridiculous. No one wants Assange to become a martyr and provoke world-wide rebellion now, do they?

    "So how's his appeal going? He filed it and no response from the Brits?"

    Unfortunately, the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow in the UK. We can but wait.

    "I am disappointed in ABC because of their cheap stunt. I wonder who's going to lose access to the PM?"

    I'd hope that such an upright government are above petty revenge. After all, we don't see other nations in the west carrying out unfair, unsanctioned and illegal punitive actions against individuals or organisations do....oh....wait....

    "You know that things always happens in 3s. 1) Charlie Sheen, 2) Gilbert Gottfreid getting the Axe and now 3) Assange making an Ass of himself."

    Didn't have you down as a believe in synchronicity or fate, Gumby.... Also, Charlie Sheen is a person, not a thing or an event (despite what HE might think!)

    "Lets face it. If you're going to ambush your own PM, you'd best have relevant dirt and not make a wild arse suggestion that she'd ever be tried on treason."

    Yeah, everyone, lets see your cards on the table. Evidence all round please then we can make an informed decision rather than letting rhetoric, appeal to celebrity, politcal opinion and ad hominen attacks determine our viewpoints for us!

    "Maybe if the boy hadn't been home schooled he might have learned something."

    Ad hominem attack. Ignored because its a weak last line.

    1. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: A reply to Gumby.

      "Wow! Your understanding of modern political structures is astounding! (Before you start, I think you ought to know that I work inside government in an....informed...position and I *DO* know how governments function internally)."

      This is a fine example of the argumentum ad verecundiam. You are an authority, we must take it from you. Furthermore it is also a fine example of generalising from the particular; you claim X on the basis of your anecdotal experience (and it is merely anecdotal unless you can adduce evidence collected by means of a sound design, analysed rigorously and replicated by several labs), and it only takes one item of contrary evidence to overturn your argument.

      "A senior politician not being held accountable for the work of their "lower pay grades" is not an acceptable excuse. They are ultimately held accountable for everything in their purview."

      Whether or not this is true, it clearly is the case that politicians are not omnipotent. Expecting them to know about everything in their department is so unrealistic as to make me remember Albert Ellis and his theories about 'mustabatory thinking'. I'll tell you why...

      ...When Dennis Healey was chancellor civil servants filtered out information that would have caused him to decide not permit the upgrade of our submarine borne nuclear deterrent (that is, to withhold the financial allocation), it being that the missiles could not have hit Moscow. He said that had he known he would have cancelled the order. It would not have been value for money.

      That is a matter of a far bigger order than Julian Assange and the passing of information. It is the matter of several billion pounds worth of defence equipment that was only purchased because civil servants - that is, of a far lower rank than the chancellor of the exchequer - decided it would go ahead. On that ground alone I am unsurprised that a PM would not hear of information sharing at a lower level.

      I read philosophy and politics and this sort of thing was the meat and drink of Government 101 courses, not merely the 'Yes Minister' series. Things really do happen without the minister's knowledge, if only because the information overload that would otherwise occur would make a minister's job impossible. Then there are the more unpleasant instances, such as the one I cite above. It really does happen, and I only need produce one item of evidence to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your claim:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12712608

      People are only held accountable when sufficient numbers of sufficiently well placed individuals (journalists, politicians...) shout long and hard enough. As the case of Edwina Curry, salmonella and eggs demonstrates this may be a 'bad thing'.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      @Bernard...

      Its great that you agree on some things. :-)

      But lets take a look...

      "It's in the newspaper so it must be fact? Well, thats a leap"

      No, I'm saying that the fact is that there *are* newspaper stories. Not that content of the stories are true. They may or may not be true and with multiple newspapers in Australia reporting, I would tend to believe that it is a fact that an investigation occurred.

      You go on...

      "Wow! Your understanding of modern political structures is astounding! (Before you start, I think you ought to know that I work inside government in an....informed...position and I *DO* know how governments function internally). A senior politician not being held accountable for the work of their "lower pay grades" is not an acceptable excuse. They are ultimately held accountable for everything in their purview."

      By your logic... then the President of the US knows all of his staffers and their staffers, admins and interns by name, and knows what they are doing? Talk about micro management. :-)

      (I think you get the idea.)

      My point was that there is nothing for the PM to 'be held accountable' for. Communication and Cooperation occur on a regular basis and do not require the PM's approval for trivial information sharing. (Assange trivial. Key codes to the football? Not so much.)

      "Didn't have you down as a believe in synchronicity or fate, Gumby.... Also, Charlie Sheen is a person, not a thing or an event (despite what HE might think!)"

      Well I *meant* Charlie Sheens recent antics which are *events*. :-P

      And no I don't really believe in synchronicity, was just trying to add a little humor.

      As to the ad hominem attack. Yeah, you're right. It was weak. But true none the less.

  26. Bernard M. Orwell
    Troll

    @Gumby....

    "Unlike you, when I post its either to comment on topic, or to flame a commetard."

    Self-Admitted Troll. Sad.

    "Unlike you, I actually have a life out of here where I do real work for a living."

    Ad hominem.

    "The irony here is that while you don't like my opinion, you lack the ability to actually debate what I say and provide real historical facts to back up your statement."

    Ad hominem.

    "Now, I'll admit, I do make mistakes. Dan G. caught one mistake where I took one of the defense's arguments as fact because the claim had been reported on by many newspapers."

    Self-effacing claptrap. Nothing new there.

    "Do your homework. You might learn something in the process."

    Ad hominem.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Arogant, self absorbed, put's lives at risk, manages to f*ck of most of the western and arab world

    I'm surprised Colnel Gadaffi doesn't get as much support as Assange

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Before the spelling pedants notice

      Apologies for the poor title spelling

  28. phrag
    WTF?

    youtube link

    when viewing this article, the youtube window shows blank...

    when i load it through TOR, the youtube link shows up...

    ???

  29. david wilson

    Shield?

    >>"An Australian citizen, Assange has been critical of Gillard's government for not doing more to shield him from US investigators trying to prove the WikiLeaks founder was complicit in the in the suspected leaking of thousands of classified diplomatic cables"

    Why should someone generally expect their government to shield them from an investigation?

    How would they think it could even be done if they were in another country?

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Ass hanger

    As far as I'm concerned Julian Assange is just a slimy little tw** who left people who trusted him out to hang.

    He knows that this is his last hurrah, as his treatment of Manning will ensure that no one of sound mind will ever again trust wiki-leaks as a viable route to express concerns about the actions of their State, so he's milking it (for his own personal aggrandisement) for all it's worth.

    Did he commit treason?

    My understanding is that you can only commit treason against your own country (in his case Australia), so I think he's probably safe on that one.

    Should he be sitting in the cell next to Bradley Manning? If there was any justice in the world...

    Hell yes!

    Personally I'd sell him to the state offering the highest punishment, and use the funds to provide a proper defence for “his” sources.

    I'm just glad he's not British because he's a f****** disgrace.

    Can we have a "Dead and Burried" icon please? Because that just about describes wiki-leaks.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like