independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Thu 18th Oct 2018 8:28am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Julian Assange. Which nation can grant him asylum before Ecuador hands him over to the U.S?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/26/18 7:05am

hausofmoi7

avatar

Julian Assange. Which nation can grant him asylum before Ecuador hands him over to the U.S?

Julian Assange is about to have his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy revoked.
Australia is highly unlikely to do the right thing in this situation and grant him a safe passage home.
Doing so would require them to go against the U.S and CIA.
And considering Australia is for all intent and purposes a state of the u.s
(Albiet without any political leverage) and does not have a voice of its own on the world stage, this won't happen.

So which country could and should give Julian Assange asylum?




.
[Edited 7/26/18 7:17am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/26/18 9:43am

Empress

None - fuck him. He gives me the creeps.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/26/18 10:55am

13cjk13

Empress said:

None - fuck him. He gives me the creeps.

He's a monster.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/26/18 2:54pm

JoeyC

avatar

Empress said:

None - fuck him. He gives me the creeps.

yeahthat

Rest in Peace Bettie Boo. See u soon.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/26/18 3:06pm

13cjk13

JoeyC said:

Empress said:

None - fuck him. He gives me the creeps.

yeahthat

He's also garbage.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/26/18 3:45pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Empress said:

None - fuck him. He gives me the creeps.



I second that emotion!

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/26/18 3:48pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

Julian Assange is about to have his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy revoked. Australia is highly unlikely to do the right thing in this situation and grant him a safe passage home. Doing so would require them to go against the U.S and CIA. And considering Australia is for all intent and purposes a state of the u.s (Albiet without any political leverage) and does not have a voice of its own on the world stage, this won't happen. So which country could and should give Julian Assange asylum? . [Edited 7/26/18 7:17am]

.

Why is that the right thing Australia should do?

.

Whilst I disagree with your opinion on Australian sovereignty, this is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between a person's opinion that a country is voiceless and leverageless because they are a client state and the right thing you suggest. Most sovereign nations follow the rule of law and this includes agreements on the treatment and extradiction of citizens accused of crimes whilst they are outside of their home country - but these all recognise the laws of the other countries.

.

What is the legal defence against extradiction that Australia can make to the UK to prevent them allowing legal extradiction to the US under the agreements between Australia, the US and UK? By what power does the Australian government grant safe passage from the Ecuador embassy in the UK? Last I checked, the UK was not a client state of Australia (Yet, but if the Brexit negotiates continue to fail, who knows?)

.

In regards to an asylum request to another country, what fear of persecution on protected grounds applies here? How do you convince the UK to allow Assange to cross their sovereign territory to seek asylum in this other country?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/26/18 6:32pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

^^^^
Ian.
What about the argument that at the end of the day Julian and Wikileaks are only accused of journalism?
Also take into account the state and war crimes that they revealed that is the cause of all this.
This wasn't garbage tabloid journalism either, the iraq war logs had more social importance and value than anything the fascistic corporate owned media are allowed to publish.

Wikileaks punched upwards when most media punches down.
This is why I feel most people are fearful or hesitant to stand for Wikileaks.

If Wikileaks published junk journalism and propaganda about Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous community, Refugees or poor people then they would be defended, even if people didn't agree they would still defend that journalists right.
But Wikileaks punched upwards and for that reason people are not so quick to defend them.




.
[Edited 7/26/18 18:56pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/26/18 7:09pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

Empress said:

None - fuck him. He gives me the creeps.



The Apache helicopter shooting innocent people was creepy.
The Iraq War log and the Abu Ghraib torture and assault dungeons are creepy.
Sanctions on Venezuela, The Congolese and Yemen holocaust are creepy.

These things are actually creepy.



.
[Edited 7/26/18 19:14pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/26/18 7:12pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

Oh Wikileaks. People have been played. Secrets revealed. Some for political reasons some well intentioned. It’s a big complicated goopy ball of morals rolled through the streets and full of dirt and grime.

I have said that in the long run, it’s served a good purpose as none of it can be taken back and all of it based on real records. All we can do now going forward is learn from it and all involved facing justice however time eventually rules it.
Crooked Donnie. Lock him up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/26/18 7:41pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

^^^^ Ian. What about the argument that at the end of the day Julian and Wikileaks are only accused of journalism? Also take into account the state and war crimes that they revealed that is the cause of all this. This wasn't garbage tabloid journalism either, the iraq war logs had more social importance and value than anything the fascistic corporate owned media are allowed to publish. Wikileaks punched upwards when most media punches down. This is why I feel most people are fearful or hesitant to stand for Wikileaks. If Wikileaks published junk journalism and propaganda about Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous community, Refugees or poor people then they would be defended, even if people didn't agree they would still defend that journalists right. But Wikileaks punched upwards and for that reason people are not so quick to defend them.

.

But that does not answer any of my questions.

.

These were about the law and practicality and not about political and journalistic bias. The law is clear. Once he steps outside of the embassy, he is in the UK NOT Australia. Any and every extradiction is governed by law, not your opinion about what is publicly defended by people or not.

.

Short of doing something like when the US invaded Pakistan to kidnap and kill Osama outside of any ROEs within a declared war against the sovereign nation of Pakistan, Australia cannot provide safe passage against the UK police and military forces on UK soil. This is not because you think we are client state of the US, but because we have no intention of invading the UK or overiding their laws. What practical thing can Australia (or any country) do short of invasion or ignoring such laws?

.

This is not about some modern day Robin Hood, he personally has been highly selective in how he has acted and who he has supported. He has not done anything to support Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous communities, Refugees or poor people.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/26/18 8:02pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

IanRG said:



hausofmoi7 said:


^^^^ Ian. What about the argument that at the end of the day Julian and Wikileaks are only accused of journalism? Also take into account the state and war crimes that they revealed that is the cause of all this. This wasn't garbage tabloid journalism either, the iraq war logs had more social importance and value than anything the fascistic corporate owned media are allowed to publish. Wikileaks punched upwards when most media punches down. This is why I feel most people are fearful or hesitant to stand for Wikileaks. If Wikileaks published junk journalism and propaganda about Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous community, Refugees or poor people then they would be defended, even if people didn't agree they would still defend that journalists right. But Wikileaks punched upwards and for that reason people are not so quick to defend them.

.


But that does not answer any of my questions.


.


These were about the law and practicality and not about political and journalistic bias. The law is clear. Once he steps outside of the embassy, he is in the UK NOT Australia. Any and every extradiction is governed by law, not your opinion about what is publicly defended by people or not.


.


Short of doing something like when the US invaded Pakistan to kidnap and kill Osama outside of any ROEs within a declared war against the sovereign nation of Pakistan, Australia cannot provide safe passage against the UK police and military forces on UK soil. This is not because you think we are client state of the US, but because we have no intention of invading the UK or overiding their laws. What practical thing can Australia (or any country) do short of invasion or ignoring such laws?


.


This is not about some modern day Robin Hood, he personally has been highly selective in how he has acted and who he has supported. He has not done anything to support Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous communities, Refugees or poor people.



ANU professor of international law, Don Rothwell is saying that Australia could pressure the U.K government to deport him to Australia after he is released from the Ecuador embassy for breach of bail.
Breach of bail would mean he was in violation of his visa. Which is grounds for deportation to Australia.
Australia could make sure and not allow him to be extradited to the U.S for the crime of committing journalism.

But they are currently not persuing this option.

If he was arrested overseas for publishing propaganda about Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous communities, Refugees or poor people.
The government (Labour and Liberal) on both sides would defend him regardless of thier personal and political beliefs.
as they would view this as a breach of his rights as a journalist and view it as a fascistic precedent to set against journalism and the media.


.
[Edited 7/26/18 20:24pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/26/18 8:55pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

none he should face music, i think the US should say "turn yourself over and well take the death penalty off the table and even say you can get the chance to be paroled in 30 years"

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/27/18 1:37am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

IanRG said:

.

But that does not answer any of my questions.

.

These were about the law and practicality and not about political and journalistic bias. The law is clear. Once he steps outside of the embassy, he is in the UK NOT Australia. Any and every extradiction is governed by law, not your opinion about what is publicly defended by people or not.

.

Short of doing something like when the US invaded Pakistan to kidnap and kill Osama outside of any ROEs within a declared war against the sovereign nation of Pakistan, Australia cannot provide safe passage against the UK police and military forces on UK soil. This is not because you think we are client state of the US, but because we have no intention of invading the UK or overiding their laws. What practical thing can Australia (or any country) do short of invasion or ignoring such laws?

.

This is not about some modern day Robin Hood, he personally has been highly selective in how he has acted and who he has supported. He has not done anything to support Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous communities, Refugees or poor people.

ANU professor of international law, Don Rothwell is saying that Australia could pressure the U.K government to deport him to Australia after he is released from the Ecuador embassy for breach of bail. Breach of bail would mean he was in violation of his visa. Which is grounds for deportation to Australia. Australia could make sure and not allow him to be extradited to the U.S for the crime of committing journalism. But they are currently not persuing this option. If he was arrested overseas for publishing propaganda about Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous communities, Refugees or poor people. The government (Labour and Liberal) on both sides would defend him regardless of thier personal and political beliefs. as they would view this as a breach of his rights as a journalist and view it as a fascistic precedent to set against journalism and the media. . [Edited 7/26/18 20:24pm]

.

That is not quite true. Firstly Don Rothwell is an expert in the law of the sea, environmental law and military and security law, not criminal law and extradiction. What the ABC reported him as saying is NOT that the Australian government could pressure for deportation but that Assange could leave the embassy of his own accord, get arrested by the British, be prosecuted by the British, serve a short period of incarceration in Britain and at this point would be in breach of UK law on his immigration status and so he could be deported. There is no mention of this needing to be as a result of pressure by the Australian Government or involve the Australian Government at all. This option is also his second choice as he says "the OTHER [option] is that he is deported to Australia." He goes on to say that as the US has made no formal extradiction request yet, they could then seek extradiction from Australia and this would have to be dealt with by normal [legal] procedures.

.

He is not a journalist, he is not even an editor. He is a self-serving curator of leaks by other people. Why would any Australian politician other than Clive Palmer (Australia's Trump who currently has no position in any government) seek to defend a person who has shown his dishonesty in how he supported Putin and helped Trump to be elected. His dishonesty also destroyed his own political party in Australia - the Wikileaks Party - where, ironically, when the majority of his senior party officials resigned they justified this by leaking his secret political deals that were against that party's laws and against his public denials.

.

That he has never supported Sudanese people, Muslims, Indigenous communities, Refugees or poor people is not a good reason to justify that he should be treated the same as a real journalist who did defend these people.

[Edited 7/27/18 2:46am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/27/18 4:15am

hausofmoi7

avatar

I said that if he was arrested or wanted for publishing racist, xenophobic or class based propaganda that the government, including the "left", would put thier political views aside in order to defend the principle of press freedom.
What Julian and Wikileaks actually did was reveal war crimes and corruption of the U.S government and military.
Wikileaks came out in support of people in war ravaged countries.
Politicians on all sides are not so quick to stand up to defend the principle of press freedom when it comes to such matters as war and the u.s military.

If Australia doesn't function as a state or colony of the U.S.
Why are they willing to assist the U.S government in extraditing Julian for supposedly committing treason against the U.S?
Even if he were American what he did is not treasonous.
Regardless, he is not even American to begin with!


More importantly he didn't commit a crime.
Furthermore regardless of what people think his intention or motives might be, what Wikileaks did was noble.



.
[Edited 7/27/18 5:05am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/27/18 6:04am

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

I said that if he was arrested or wanted for publishing racist, xenophobic or class based propaganda that the government, including the "left", would put thier political views aside in order to defend the principle of press freedom. What Julian and Wikileaks actually did was reveal war crimes and corruption of the U.S government and military. Wikileaks came out in support of people in war ravaged countries. Politicians on all sides are not so quick to stand up to defend the principle of press freedom when it comes to such matters as war and the u.s military. If Australia doesn't function as a state or colony of the U.S. Why are they willing to assist the U.S government in extraditing Julian for supposedly committing treason against the U.S? Even if he were American what he did is not treasonous. Regardless, he is not even American to begin with! More importantly he didn't commit a crime. Furthermore regardless of what people think his intention or motives might be, what Wikileaks did was noble. . [Edited 7/27/18 5:05am]

.

I love the ideals he initially espoused, but hate his execution and self-serving honesty. It had noble purposes early on but quickly lost them. From a handlful of early successes that were far more as a result of the actual whistleblowers the whole thing has become a joke and a tool easily manipulated by Putin etc. Name a recent success other than Trump's election and people who hang on to Putin being innocent of interferring in the 2016 US election.

.

For all your accusations of Australia subservience and distortions of what Don Rothwell actually said, the two most important things you missed are:

1 Julian is not in Australia - he is in the UK, and

2 There has been NO formal extradition request by the US to either the UK (the only place it can be made other than Ecuador) or to Australia.

.

Australia has not and cannot have done anything to assist the US in extraditing Julian because, other than bluster and rhetoric, the US has done nothing to seek to extradite Julian. Rothwell stated that such a request of Australia can only come after he is deported here if that ever happens and then that request must follow the rule of law. This is not because of any imagined subserviency, it is just how two separate countries handle extradiction.

.

You are perhaps too free with changing accusations but that does not mean any of them are true. There have been plenty of examples of press reports against wars and the US military especially from Vietnam on. Plenty from real journalists that have reported on war crimes by the US - eg CNN raised Abu Ghraib more than 6 years before the Wikileaks data dump.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/27/18 7:01am

hausofmoi7

avatar

Don Rothwell said that deportation to Australia due to violating his visa for breach of bail was an option.

The implication in my post that this comment is directed at the Australian government is due to context of the discussion we are having in here about the Australian government's inaction or inability to support Julian.
I wasn't distorting what he said.
Regardless of who Don directed the comment to, it's true.
Deportation is an option.

Its also true that this option is only really viable with support of the Australian government.
After he is deported the government would need to make sure he is not extradited to the u.s for committing journalism (irrelevant what anyone thinks of him as a journalist)

Also, it was CBS and not CNN that broke the Abu Grahid story.
I wouldnt suggest you were trying to distort the truth by saying as such.
when it's very clear what you were trying to say.
Yes, sometimes mainstream media do break such news stories.




.
[Edited 7/27/18 8:08am]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/27/18 7:11am

nd33

I don’t know why you ask to “name a recent success”. Ummm, how about every file of the thousands they release per year? Their goal is to leak classified or hidden government/political documents relating to every country of the world for the purpose of transparency. They’re doing it.

AFAIK, they’ve never leaked anything that has turned out to be inauthentic, so they’re the most accurate publishers around. They maintain their 100% record by fact checking and scrutinising everything. If you think Assange deserves to be arrested, you’ve already bought in to the effective propaganda of the US govt and the CIA.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/27/18 3:46pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

Don Rothwell said that deportation to Australia due to violating his visa for breach of bail was an option. The implication in my post that this comment is directed at the Australian government is due to context of the discussion we are having in here about the Australian government's inaction or inability to support Julian. I wasn't distorting what he said. Regardless of who Don directed the comment to, it's true. Deportation is an option. Its also true that this option is only really viable with support of the Australian government. After he is deported the government would need to make sure he is not extradited to the u.s for committing journalism (irrelevant what anyone thinks of him as a journalist) Also, it was CBS and not CNN that broke the Abu Grahid story. I wouldnt suggest you were trying to distort the truth by saying as such. when it's very clear what you were trying to say. Yes, sometimes mainstream media do break such news stories. . [Edited 7/27/18 8:08am]

.

Oops CBS, not CNN. Good catch.

.

You DID distort what Don Rothwell said:
.

You said he said Australia could grant him safe passage to Australia and Australia should pressure for deportation. He said neither.
.

He said Ecuador could pressure for safe passage to Ecuador as his preferred solution. This because it would get him out of the Ecuador embassy to Ecuador, a place where there is no extradiction treaty with the US. He did not say anything about this being something Australia should (or could) grant.

.

He said, as the other option, that would probably would not work: Julian could choose of his volition a process that would see him arrested, charged and imprisoned by the British for breaching bail conditions so he is automatically deported to Australia for immigation violations. Again, this in not occuring, not because the Australian government is just a subservient state of the US, but because it is not a process that is reliant on Australain pressure to start: It is reliant on Julian. Rothwell said this would then be reliant on normal legal processes for assessing extradiction processes. We are not at this point - He is not here, the US has not asked Australia to extradite him, We don't know their arguments and specific charges and, as a Westminster style Government, the Judiciary is not required to allow the Executive Government to waive the rule of law. Rothwell knows this, so the branch of the Australian Government HE actually said would be involved is the Judiciary.

.

None of this shows Australia is not acting because we are powerless client state. None of this gives a current course of action that the Australian government is not doing because the US government told tem not to.

.

I gave you a specific challenge: Name a recent success of Wikileaks other than Trump's election and for people who hang on to Putin being innocent of interferring in the 2016 US election.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/27/18 3:58pm

IanRG

nd33 said:

I don’t know why you ask to “name a recent success”. Ummm, how about every file of the thousands they release per year? Their goal is to leak classified or hidden government/political documents relating to every country of the world for the purpose of transparency. They’re doing it. AFAIK, they’ve never leaked anything that has turned out to be inauthentic, so they’re the most accurate publishers around. They maintain their 100% record by fact checking and scrutinising everything. If you think Assange deserves to be arrested, you’ve already bought in to the effective propaganda of the US govt and the CIA.

.

Then you will be able to name a recent success if there are thousands every year.

.

I understand the ideals behind their goal - I also understand that they are not this completely altruistic organisation with a perfect record. People from Wikileaks, including Julian, were on many, many international TV shows stating the source of the emails they withheld so they could be released at the perfect time to maximise their impact on the 2016 election did not come through any Russian sources. Even Trump (on his good days) agrees this is wrong.

.

I do not think Julian deserves to be arrested for starting Wikileaks and never said that. I said it is not the fault of the Australian Government being just a subservient and powerless client state of the US that Julian is still in the Ecuador Embassy under pressure from the Ecuadorian governemnt to finally leave.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/27/18 5:52pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

IanRG said:


I do not think Julian deserves to be arrested for starting Wikileaks and never said that. I said it is not the fault of the Australian Government being just a subservient and powerless client state of the US that Julian is still in the Ecuador Embassy under pressure from the Ecuadorian governemnt to finally leave.



We agree that Julian shouldn't be arrested.

Let's not forget that the CIA had Sir John Kerr, the 18th Governor-General of Australia fire a prime minster because he wanted the U.S to remove its military spy base at Pine Gap.
The U.S and the U.K have the power to fire an Australian prime minister.

I'm sure this type of power over Australian politics plays a huge part in how Australian politicians are treating the Julian Assange situation and how they deal with anything concerning U.S military.
They could literally be fired by the CIA.

Saying that Australia is for all intent and purposes a state of the U.S is not hyperbolic.
I don't even think U.S federal government or the CIA has that much power over state elected officials in the U.S proper as they do Australian politicians.


.
[Edited 7/27/18 18:17pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/27/18 6:46pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

IanRG said:

I do not think Julian deserves to be arrested for starting Wikileaks and never said that. I said it is not the fault of the Australian Government being just a subservient and powerless client state of the US that Julian is still in the Ecuador Embassy under pressure from the Ecuadorian governemnt to finally leave.

We agree that Julian shouldn't be arrested. Let's not forget that the CIA had Sir John Kerr, the 18th Governor-General of Australia fire a prime minster because he wanted the U.S to remove its military spy base at Pine Gap. The U.S and the U.K have the power to fire an Australian prime minister. I'm sure this type of power over Australian politics plays a huge part in how Australian politicians are treating the Julian Assange situation and how they deal with anything concerning U.S military. They could literally be fired by the CIA. Saying that Australia is for all intent and purposes a state of the U.S is not hyperbolic. I don't even think U.S federal government or the CIA has that much power over state elected officials in the U.S proper as they do Australian politicians. . [Edited 7/27/18 18:17pm]

.

No, I said I don't think he deserves to be arrested for starting Wikileaks.

.

He deserves to be arrested for rape (but his actions and obstructions means he will never face punishment for this).

.

He has broken his bail conditions and you raised that Rothwell thinks it is an option that he be arrested for this, be charged, serve a short sentence and be deported.

.

Deserving to be arrested and being correctly arrested are two different things. You only deserve to be arrested if subsequently the courts decide you are guilty of the alleged crimes. You can be correctly arrested but then found innocent.

.

If the Australian courts rule that the reasons for a possible future extradiction to answer currently unlaid and undefined specific charges in the US if he ever gets to Australia are strong enough to trigger the proper rule of law requring acceptance of the possible future extradition request is based on so much speculation about the future. It is not a reason to draw conclusions about current and former actions by Australian politicians.

.

Distractions such as Pilger's theories on why Gough Whitlam was sacked as Prime Minister by a simple and direct operation of the Australian Constitution when his government was unable to get budget supply bills through the Senate in 1975 have nothing to do with your opinon that the Australian government should circumvent UK and Australian law on asylum and extradition but can't because we are a subservient client state of the US government.

.

None of this shows Australia is not acting because we are powerless client state. None of this gives a current course of action that the Australian government is not doing because the US government told them not to.

.

I gave you a specific challenge: Name a recent success of Wikileaks other than Trump's election and for people who hang on to Putin being innocent of interferring in the 2016 US election.

.

What is hyperbolic to hyperbole?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 07/27/18 7:51pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

http://www.abc.net.au/new...ia/6859734

On November 9, 1975, a CIA operative in Washington named Ted Shackley, through an ASIO liaison officer, outlined American concerns about Whitlam and his government, which it cabled to ASIO and passed on to Whitlam.

"Of course, Whitlam doesn't see this as a big concern at all," Dr Blaxland said.

"He reads the cable and says, well, write back and explain that their concerns are misplaced."

Two days later, the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, sacked Whitlam.


https://www.greenleft.org...-dismissal
Why else would Warren Christopher, US Deputy Director of State, come to Australia in 1977 to tell Whitlam, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his intention to work with whatever government Australians elected; and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes?




Jimmy Carter apologized to the former prime minister for the u.s involvement in his firing.
What do you think thier reason for having him fired and Jimmy Carter's apology was for?

You really think U.S had an Australian prime minister fired because he couldnt get budget bills passed?








.
[Edited 7/27/18 20:59pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 07/27/18 9:00pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

http://www.abc.net.au/new...ia/6859734
On November 9, 1975, a CIA operative in Washington named Ted Shackley, through an ASIO liaison officer, outlined American concerns about Whitlam and his government, which it cabled to ASIO and passed on to Whitlam. "Of course, Whitlam doesn't see this as a big concern at all," Dr Blaxland said. "He reads the cable and says, well, write back and explain that their concerns are misplaced." Two days later, the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, sacked Whitlam.
https://www.greenleft.org...-dismissal
Why else would Warren Christopher, US Deputy Director of State, come to Australia in 1977 to tell Whitlam, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his intention to work with whatever government Australians elected; and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes?
Budget bills? That wasn't the issue. It was because of Pine Gap and allowing the U.S military to use Australia for its spy base. You really think U.S had an Australian prime minister fired because he couldnt get budget bills passed? Jimmy Carter apologized to the former prime minister for the u.s involvement in him being fired. What do you think thier reason for doing so was? . [Edited 7/27/18 20:14pm]

.

You are off topic, out of context and have no idea what actually happens in Australia. I could show you the part of the Constitution and the documents about the dismissal from the day, not an article from the website of a spin off of the collapse of communist parties in Australia or an out of context quote from a 2015 article from the ABC.

.

I note that you chopped off the last sentence from the ABC article. It said:

.

On November 9, 1975, a CIA operative in Washington named Ted Shackley, through an ASIO liaison officer, outlined American concerns about Whitlam and his government, which it cabled to ASIO and passed on to Whitlam.

"Of course, Whitlam doesn't see this as a big concern at all," Dr Blaxland said.

"He reads the cable and says, well, write back and explain that their concerns are misplaced."

Two days later, the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, sacked Whitlam.

The conspiracy theories continue.

.

Sir John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam because he was unable to pass the budget supply bills through the Senate. Other than the events above, there are clear and documented formal steps of what actually lead to the dismissal. This was directly as a result of manoeuvring by Australians like Malcolm Fraser, not the CIA directing the Governor General to sack the Prime Minister because ASIO passed on concerns the CIA had about Whitlam. As an old enough Australian, I was there - We all had concerns about Whitlam at this stage. Despite the obvious opportunistic and blatent political game play by Fraser, the people of Australia voiced their concerns against Whitlam instead. They convincingly voted Whitlam out of office by a record wide margin (91 seats vs 36). One of the other conspiracy theories is this election result was fabricated by the CIA. Obviously, there is no evidence or any credible support for this either.

.

None of this shows Australia is not acting because we are powerless client state. None of this gives a current course of action that the Australian government is not doing because the US government told them not to.

.

I gave you a specific challenge: Name a recent success of Wikileaks other than Trump's election and for people who hang on to Putin being innocent of interferring in the 2016 US election.

.

What is hyperbolic to hyperbole?

[Edited 7/27/18 21:05pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 07/27/18 9:24pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

IanRG said:



hausofmoi7 said:


http://www.abc.net.au/new...ia/6859734
On November 9, 1975, a CIA operative in Washington named Ted Shackley, through an ASIO liaison officer, outlined American concerns about Whitlam and his government, which it cabled to ASIO and passed on to Whitlam. "Of course, Whitlam doesn't see this as a big concern at all," Dr Blaxland said. "He reads the cable and says, well, write back and explain that their concerns are misplaced." Two days later, the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, sacked Whitlam.

https://www.greenleft.org...-dismissal
Why else would Warren Christopher, US Deputy Director of State, come to Australia in 1977 to tell Whitlam, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his intention to work with whatever government Australians elected; and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes?

Budget bills? That wasn't the issue. It was because of Pine Gap and allowing the U.S military to use Australia for its spy base. You really think U.S had an Australian prime minister fired because he couldnt get budget bills passed? Jimmy Carter apologized to the former prime minister for the u.s involvement in him being fired. What do you think thier reason for doing so was? . [Edited 7/27/18 20:14pm]

.


You are off topic, out of context and have no idea what actually happens in Australia. I could show you the part of the Constitution and the documents about the dismissal from the day, not an article from the website of a spin off of the collapse of communist parties in Australia or an out of context quote from a 2015 article from the ABC.


.


I note that you chopped off the last sentence from the ABC article. It said:


.



On November 9, 1975, a CIA operative in Washington named Ted Shackley, through an ASIO liaison officer, outlined American concerns about Whitlam and his government, which it cabled to ASIO and passed on to Whitlam.


"Of course, Whitlam doesn't see this as a big concern at all," Dr Blaxland said.


"He reads the cable and says, well, write back and explain that their concerns are misplaced."


Two days later, the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, sacked Whitlam.


The conspiracy theories continue.



.


Sir John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam because he was unable to pass the budget supply bills through the Senate. Other than the events above, there are clear and documented formal steps of what actually lead to the dismissal. This was directly as a result of manoeuvring by Australians like Malcolm Fraser, not the CIA directing the Governor General to sack the Prime Minister because ASIO passed on concerns the CIA had about Whitlam. As an old enough Australian, I was here - We all had concerns about Whitlam at this stage. Despite the obvious opportunitic and blatent political game play by Fraser, the people of Australia voiced their concerns against Whitlam and convincingly voted Whitlam out of office by a record wide margin (91 seats vs 36). One of the other conspiracy theories is this result was fabricated by the CIA. Obviously, there is no evidence or any credible support for this.


.


None of this shows Australia is not acting because we are powerless client state. None of this gives a current course of action that the Australian government is not doing because the US government told them not to.





.





I gave you a specific challenge: Name a recent success of Wikileaks other than Trump's election and for people who hang on to Putin being innocent of interferring in the 2016 US election.



.



What is hyperbolic to hyperbole?



I already stated that any personal opinions of Wikileaks usefulness or personal views of it success as a news outlet is irrelevant to the issue here.
Which is a media outlets right to publish government dealings, corruption and war crimes.


I posted from the news article what Jimmy Carter said to the former prime Minister and I also posted a timeline of events in the lead up to his firing.
Am I fabricating the timeline of events which I'm using to support my assertions in this discussion?
Which is the CIA's power over Australian politics which makes them unable and unwilling to offer Julian assistance.
As the firing of a former prime minister for wanting the NSA to relocate its spy base in the country has played in this chilling effect.


explain what Jimmy meant by when he said to the former prime minister after he was fired "the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes?"

What is the context and meaning of Jimmy Carters apology in regards to the CIA's interference in Australia's Democratic process?


If you are unable or don't want to answer what I'm saying, thats fine, you don't have to keep calling me a liar to try and discredit everything I'm saying when you are unable to refute the facts I'm posting.





.
[Edited 7/27/18 22:16pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 07/27/18 9:28pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

.
[Edited 7/27/18 21:30pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 07/27/18 10:15pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

IanRG said:

.

Sir John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam because he was unable to pass the budget supply bills through the Senate. Other than the events above, there are clear and documented formal steps of what actually lead to the dismissal. This was directly as a result of manoeuvring by Australians like Malcolm Fraser, not the CIA directing the Governor General to sack the Prime Minister because ASIO passed on concerns the CIA had about Whitlam. As an old enough Australian, I was here - We all had concerns about Whitlam at this stage. Despite the obvious opportunitic and blatent political game play by Fraser, the people of Australia voiced their concerns against Whitlam and convincingly voted Whitlam out of office by a record wide margin (91 seats vs 36). One of the other conspiracy theories is this result was fabricated by the CIA. Obviously, there is no evidence or any credible support for this.

.

None of this shows Australia is not acting because we are powerless client state. None of this gives a current course of action that the Australian government is not doing because the US government told them not to.

.

I gave you a specific challenge: Name a recent success of Wikileaks other than Trump's election and for people who hang on to Putin being innocent of interferring in the 2016 US election.

.

What is hyperbolic to hyperbole?

I already stated that any personal opinions of Wikileaks usefulness or personal views of it success as a news outlet is irrelevant to the issue here. Which is a media outlets right to publish government dealings, corruption and war crimes. Not sure why you keep calling me a liar or saying I'm taking things out of context when I provide you with actual verified facts that you are unable to refute. I posted from the news article what Jimmy Carter said to the former prime Minister. Am I taking Jimmy Carters apology out of context? If so please explain what he meant by "the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes?" Now you answer a question, one that actually pertains to the discussion we are having. Australia's inability to assist Julian Assange and Wikileaks rights as media outlet.

.

But they are important: If the site is useless and unsuccessful other than to help people like Putin and Trump, then why would the Australian Government seek to do more than apply the rule of law to asylum and extradition for a person hiding out in an embassy in the UK initially to avoid rape charges and fear of as yet nothing but bluster and rhetoric from the US?

.

I have not called you a liar at all. We just disagree. By way of example:

.

- I showed where you chopped off the last sentence from the 2015 ABC article - a key sentence about the whole article. When looked at in context, it was about conspiracy theories in regards to the relationship between the post war Australian Labor Party and US and USSR security organisations. These were not presented as proven facts, just arguments made by a number of people.

- You posted an opinion article from 2015 (40 years after the events) from a spin off of the collapse of the last communist parties in Australia. You misread it. This article claims, with no evidence, that Warren Christopher came to Australia to pass on a promise to a former Prime Minister to never interfere with Australian politics again. It does not say Jimmy Carter said anything to a former Australian Prime Minister. What I am saying is this just not pass any sniff test. It is not believable that the US Secretary of State would make a visit to another country to make a secret apology and promise to person no longer in power! To quote the Australian newspaper article from 2014 titled "Maintain the conspiracy rage":

.

Then there was veteran journalist Max Suich, who wrote a long essay for The Australian Financial Review also linking the CIA to Mr Whitlam’s dismissal by the governor-general, John Kerr, on November 11, 1975. He reheated the story that US deputy secretary of state Warren Christopher told Whitlam in 1977 the US “would never again interfere” in Australia’s domestic politics.

.

The problem with these conspiracy buffs is they have no evidence to support their claims. Whitlam never gave these notions any credence nor did he see the need to probe them. He believed the motivation of those who played a key role in the termination of his government — chiefly the governor-general, opposition leader Malcolm Fraser and chief justice Garfield Barwick — had always been clear in their statements and actions.

.

Note: You are using as proof that the US is interferring in Australian politics after 1977, a quote that says from 1977 they will never interfere in Australian politics again.

.

Asked and answered. You are clutching at straws about unproven purposes and secret conversations between Christopher and Whitlam claimed to have occured by unreliable political websites and conspiracy theorists but never confirmed by either person there. These sites and conspiracy theorists state they were said by Warren Christopher but you are misrepresenting them as from, rather than in the name of, Jimmy Carter.

.

Wikileaks continues to operate with Julian hiding from a dropped rape investigation because he fears unlaid charges and unpresented extradition requests. There is no actions that the Australian Government has failed to do because we are just a powerless subservient client state operating under the strict instructions of the US.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 07/27/18 10:24pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

If you are unable or don't want to answer what I'm saying, thats fine, you don't have to keep calling me a liar to try and discredit everything I'm saying when you are unable to refute the facts I'm posting.

.

I reiterate I have not called you a liar at all.

.

I have just presented why I disagree with you.

.

I have answered you.

.

In discussions between people with different views, disagreement does not mean anyone is calling anyone a liar, opinions are not facts and counter arguments are statements of refutation.

.

The simple key facts are the US has not made a extradition request for Australia to ignore, not made any formal specific charges and nothing you have presented proves Australia has refused to do the right thing because the US has instructed it powerless lackeys to break international law and refuse a citizen his rights under the rule of law.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 07/27/18 10:46pm

hausofmoi7

avatar

If you are taking the position that CIA interference into other countries democarcies and the power they hold over certain nations as conspiracy theory then we are not going to agree on why Australia won't assist Julian.
As we are not going to agree on the chilling effect the 1975 firing of the prime minister had on Australian politics.

To highlight my assertions that the CIA and U.S pressure is playing a part in Australias inaction.
Here is an article about the CIA, Julian and Iceland.


Former Icelandic minister claims US sent 'planeload of FBI agents to frame Julian Assange' during mission to the country in 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.u...sange.html

A former Icelandic minister has claimed that the FBI attempted to frame Julian Assange during a mission to Iceland.

Ögmundur Jonasson, who currently serves as a member of the Icelandic Parliament, said US authorities told him in June 2011 that hackers were trying to destroy software systems in the country.

The authorities said there was an 'imminent attack' on Iceland's government databases and that the FBI would send agents to investigate.

Jonasson said he was immediately skeptical of the FBI's intentions.

'I was suspicious,' he told Katoikos. 'Well aware that a helping hand might easily become a manipulating hand!'

Jonasson said it was only when a 'planeload' of FBI agents arrived in August that he realized the true reason for their visit.

The former minister claims the FBI was seeking Iceland's 'cooperation in what I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks'.

Jonasson said he immediately told the FBI agents to leave the country.




.
[Edited 7/27/18 22:55pm]
"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 07/27/18 11:41pm

IanRG

hausofmoi7 said:

If you are taking the position that CIA interference into other countries democarcies and the power they hold over certain nations as conspiracy theory then we are not going to agree on why Australia won't assist Julian. As we are not going to agree on the chilling effect the 1975 firing of the prime minister had on Australian politics. To highlight my assertions that the CIA and U.S pressure is playing a part in Australias inaction with getting Julian to Australia and gaurantee he won't be extradited the the U.S for publishing. Here is an article about the CIA, Julian and Iceland. Former Icelandic minister claims US sent 'planeload of FBI agents to frame Julian Assange' during mission to the country in 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.u...sange.html A former Icelandic minister has claimed that the FBI attempted to frame Julian Assange during a mission to Iceland. Ögmundur Jonasson, who currently serves as a member of the Icelandic Parliament, said US authorities told him in June 2011 that hackers were trying to destroy software systems in the country. The authorities said there was an 'imminent attack' on Iceland's government databases and that the FBI would send agents to investigate. Jonasson said he was immediately skeptical of the FBI's intentions. 'I was suspicious,' he told Katoikos. 'Well aware that a helping hand might easily become a manipulating hand!' Jonasson said it was only when a 'planeload' of FBI agents arrived in August that he realized the true reason for their visit. The former minister claims the FBI was seeking Iceland's 'cooperation in what I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks'. Jonasson said he immediately told the FBI agents to leave the country. . [Edited 7/27/18 22:47pm]

.

As an Australian, I understand the impact of what actually happened in 1975 and see no reason to jump at imagined shadows, there are enough real ones in this crisis - It was a crucial event in Australian political history. As an Australian I expect that the CIA and equivalent organisations in Russia, China and other places are operating in Australia and will seek to influence Australian governments, policies and people (eg the Chinese and Sam Dastyari) always. This does not mean Whitlam's dismissal at the orders of the CIA is anything other than a conspiracy theory with no evidence or support.

.

The first source of the term "conspiracy theory" in this thread is from the ABC article you posted, not from me. You just edited it out of the quote you posted. This is not just a way of me seeking to shutdown your arguments.

.

That the Australian newspaper article considers your prime evidence to be nothing but a conspiracy theory is because Whitlam, himself, said the claim has no credence and Christopher has never agreed that this occured. What they are saying never happened is less that what you are claiming happened - they are merely denying Whitlam and Christopher met to pass on a secret promise from Carter, you are stating Carter gave the promise to Whitlam. It makes no sense that it did occur because why would the US Secretary of State make a secret promise to person out of government?

.

The reason we don't agree on whether Australia is assisting Julian is because I said they will when it is possible within the rule of law if he gets here. I have agreed with your source, Rothwell, that this will be a decision by the Australian courts only after the US makes a future request for extradition, not a decision by the CIA. You are imagining a lack of action because Australia is just a powerless subservient client state where the US interferes with our politics based on "proof" that the US secretly promised to no longer interfere with Australian politics.

.

Other than stating the CIA investigating Wikileaks world wide including in Iceland should surprise no one and this does not prove or disprove the claim that Australia is a powerless subservient client state operating under the control of the US and this is the reason we are not helping Julian - All I will say on the Iceland claim is to point you to later sections of the article you quoted from:

.

WikiLeaks itself provided information about the incident, claiming the FBI had sent agents to interrogate an 18-year-old Icelandic citizen.

.

The individual had allegedly worked as a volunteer for WikiLeaks and had visited Assange that summer.

.

That same citizen later deceived a Canadian volunteer who wanted to raise funds for 'WikiLeaks merchandise', having them send the money to his personal bank account rather than the organization.

.

WikiLeaks makes no mention of the FBI trying to frame the organization or Assange, and Jonasson offered no evidence to support his new claims.

.

Wikileaks, itself, does not say there was any attempt to frame it or Julian. It is not credible or believable that an organisation like this would keep quiet about this attempt when it provided information about the interrogation of the Icelander.

[Edited 7/27/18 23:46pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Julian Assange. Which nation can grant him asylum before Ecuador hands him over to the U.S?