Jump to content
Login with your Gmail HERE and start posting in seconds! ×
Don't just read! Be part of the Community! Join the conversation ×
Our Newsletter now includes a Sunday edition! Stay updated 7 days a week!

Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

News_Editor

By News_Editor
in World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ulysses G. Star Member

Ulysses G.

Posted
Posted

How the heck to do you get Canadian and a US columnist and an oblique comment by Palin and get

U.S politicians and other powerful people in the USA are calling for him to be assasinated. They came out in public rallying the people of America to kill him.?

Aren't there enough real issues here without going over and over the same over-blown and ridiculous argument?

Hear, hear. About time for some common sense.

  • Replies 860
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

electau Gold Member

electau

Posted
Posted

The Americans (US) should have said nothing and accepted that they had permitted these documents to be downloaded by a 23 year old army private who was possibly mentally unbalanced at the time.

The next question that they should ask themselves is why was it possible to access thes documents so easily in the first place. Where were the supervision of staff. It looks to me and many others that to quote the words of that famous president LBJ " The DoD and State Dept could not pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel" (At the time he was referring to Latin America).

　

moetownblues Silver Member

moetownblues

Posted
Posted

A British judge granted Julian Assange bail on Tuesday but the WikiLeaks founder will remain in custody for at least another 48 hours after Swedish prosecutors said they would challenge the decision.

Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, has already spent a week in a UK jail following his surrender to police in a Swedish sex-crimes investigation. He denies any wrongdoing and his lawyers say he plans to fight Sweden's extradition request.

Britain's High Court will hear the Swedish appeal, although it wasn't immediately clear when.

Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens said his client's relief at the bail decision had already evaporated, calling it "unfortunate" that "the Swedes won't abide by the umpire's decision."

"They clearly will not spare any expense but to keep Mr Assange in jail," Stephens told journalists outside the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in London. "This is really turning into a show trial."

Celebrity supporters in the court and pro-WikiLeaks protesters outside the building had earlier cheered Judge Howard Riddle's decision to free Assange.

electau Gold Member

electau

Posted
Posted (edited)

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. Here are the requirements for free speech in Australia and the section of the Crimes act of 1914 regarding disclosure of information by a Commonweath servant.

Freedom of speech.

Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 70

Disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers

(1) A person who, being a Commonwealth Officer publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him or her), any fact or document which came to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he or she ceased to be a Commonwealth it was his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

Edited by electau
Ulysses G. Star Member

Ulysses G.

Posted
Posted

Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens said his client's relief at the bail decision had already evaporated, calling it "unfortunate" that "the Swedes won't abide by the umpire's decision."

Didn't he contest the "umpire's decision" to not grant bail to his client? What hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

venturalaw Gold Member

venturalaw

Posted
Posted

What do you mean the U.S is going to kill him? U.S politicians and other powerful people in the USA are calling for him to be assasinated. They came out in public rallying the people of America to kill him. To say that America is going to kill him is ridiculous they have already put a huge target on his back.

Do you have any links to support this contention?

I'll bet not.

I'm surprised Venturalaw and Koheesti are so ill informed...<_<

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bqtIafdoH_g

Professor Tom Flanagan Calls for the Assassination of Julian Assange on CBS NETWORK

Rage against Julian Assange and Wikileaks (Tom Flanagan, Bill O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=x6N0KHuJot8

A Fascist Call: Kill Julian Assange (Wiki Leaks) | Gerald Celente's Take

LaoPo

Ill informed??? Since when is a political science professor at the University of Calgary a 'politician' or other 'powerful person in the USA'?

Please explain.

KhunAussie52 Advanced Member

KhunAussie52

Posted
Posted

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. Here are the requirements for free speech in Australia and the section of the Crimes act of 1914 regarding disclosure of information by a Commonweath servant.

Freedom of speech.

Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 70

Disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers

(1) A person who, being a Commonwealth Officer publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence .

(2) A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him or her), any fact or document which came to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he or she ceased to be a Commonwealth it was his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence .

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

Before i reply to your post.

Could you please explain the reference to the above act And why you have used it.

KhunAussie52 Advanced Member

KhunAussie52

Posted
Posted (edited)

Whistle blowers get protection in federal legislation

THE federal government has accelerated its push for a more open system of government by introducing the first federal law protecting public servants who reveal maladministration. It plans to reverse decades of government secrecy by protecting public servants who reveal serious wrongdoing to the media.

The new scheme is intended to encourage whistle blowers in the federal public service by giving them the nation's most extensive system of legal protection and support.

It has been unveiled a week after Senator Ludwig and Attorney-General Robert McClelland welcomed a report from the Australian Law Reform Commission calling for the repeal of part of the Commonwealth Crimes Act that imposes criminal penalties for unauthorised disclosures by public servants.

http://www.theaustra...f-1225842083099

Edited by KhunAussie52
JUDAS Gold Member

JUDAS

Posted
Posted

Is it reasonable to assume that public opinion against Assange is nowhere near as bad as some would like us to believe?

The silent masses of average citizens do not do a lot of protesting on such matters. they normally let justice just take its course. ;)

Perhaps I should have been clear and said, British public opinion and they do like to demonstrate if they feel strongly about something.

electau Gold Member

electau

Posted
Posted

In reply to post #848 by KhunAussie52.

Informative Only. Freedom of speech as applied in Australia and the requirements of a Commonweath officer not to release information the the public.

In other words Julian Assange or Wikileaks has not broken any law in Australia. Wikileaks is not hosted in Australia.

(If Julian Assange was or had been a Commonwealth officer he could have been guilty of an offence).

All Wikileaks has done is publish as any editor would do.

Google "Crimes Act 1914 section 70"

　

　

KhunAussie52 Advanced Member

KhunAussie52

Posted
Posted

In reply to post #848 by KhunAussie52.

Informative Only. Freedom of speech as applied in Australia and the requirements of a Commonweath officer not to release information the the public.

In other words Julian Assange or Wikileaks has not broken any law in Australia. Wikileaks is not hosted in Australia.

(If Julian Assange was or had been a Commonwealth officer he could have been guilty of an offence).

All Wikileaks has done is publish as any editor would do.

Google "Crimes Act 1914 section 70"

　

Thank you!!!

　

KhunAussie52 Advanced Member

KhunAussie52

Posted
Posted

But in Australia yesterday, Prime Minister Julia Gillard backed away from her comment of late last week that the actions of Mr Assange and WikiLeaks were ”illegal”.

When asked what, under Australian law, was illegal about his actions, she was unable to nominate anything. ”The foundation stone of it is an illegal act,” Ms Gillard said. The ”foundation stone” was the initial theft of the cables – allegedly committed by a US army private – and not the publication by WikiLeaks.

”It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks, if there had not been an illegal act undertaken,” Ms Gillard said.

The opposition’s legal affairs spokesman, George Brandis, later called Ms Gillard’s use of language clumsy. ”As far as I can see, he [Mr Assange] hasn’t broken any Australian law, nor does it appear he has broken any American laws,” he told Sky News.

http://digitalseance.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/john-pilger-support-for-julian-assange/

KhunAussie52 Advanced Member

KhunAussie52

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just to add a little. George Brandis isn't just an opposition senator, he is a very experienced barrister.

Thanks Wallaby,i should have mentioned that!

Edited by KhunAussie52
moetownblues Silver Member

moetownblues

Posted
Posted

Quote Ulysses G

"Didn't he contest the "umpire's decision" to not grant bail to his client? What hypocrisy".

The Brits operate under the Westminster System of law. (No am I not British) possibly the best system in the world and adopted by many other countries. I will try and explain simply for you.

When a person is arrest or detained (two different things) either on a warrant or not, bail can be refused in the 1st instance. The suspect or accused then has a basic human and legal right to apply for bail and if granted is released with or without surety or conditions. If the prosecution disagrees they can apply for a further bail hearing to oppose the decision. However the prosecution can not use the same argument used for denying bail in the previous hearing. The prosection must present fresh new facts and arguments. Anything resembling the previous argument in the slightest will be dismissed. Prosecutions have won 2nd hearings but very rarely.

In relation to Assange bail was refused in the 1st instance. (This is the umpires decision that you are refering to) The defence then applied for and were granted bail under is basic legal and human rights. In doing so you yourself are saying that the defence did not accept the umpires decision in the 1st instance.

Where is the hypocracy in exercising basic rights?

cdnvic Star Member

cdnvic

Posted
Posted

One insult and the ensuing argument removed. One member loses posting rights and because you guys are incapable of keeping things civilized this discussion is closed.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.






ASEANNOW

ASEANNOW (formally ThaiVisa) is Thailand's oldest and most popular expat and foriegner forum. Sign up today and have your say!

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US

219/59 Asoke Towers, 15th Floor, Soi Sukhumvit 21, Watthana, Bangkok 10110
(+66) 99 196 1100
[email protected]

×
×
  • Create New...