News Forum - Julian Assange supporters ‘heartened’ by Aussie govt

[Thaiger]

Family, friends and supporters of imprisoned journalist Julian Assange were “heartened” and frustrated by the words of the Australian Government Attorney General yesterday. Supporters, keen to secure the release of the Australian citizen as he fights extradition from Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom, may be frustrated but Greg Barns SC, a legal advisor to the 51 year old’s campaign, said in the Guardian that he was also “heartened” by Mark Dreyfus’ comments. The 60 year old Barns said he wants more information regarding talks between Australia’s new Labour Government and the US administration to see what progress has been […]

The story Julian Assange supporters ‘heartened’ by Aussie govt as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[MrNovax]

It's a shame what governments do to real journalists.  You can push all the false information you want as long as it is in line with the government narrative.  But if you publish real information that shows the murdering, extorting, kidnapping, and terrorism of the state you will be punished.  How people morally justify these institutions is something i will never understand.  

[Soidog]

10 hours ago, MrNovax said:

It's a shame what governments do to real journalists.  You can push all the false information you want as long as it is in line with the government narrative.  But if you publish real information that shows the murdering, extorting, kidnapping, and terrorism of the state you will be punished.  How people morally justify these institutions is something i will never understand.  

I take your point, but Assange went too far. What he did went beyond the law for any normal journalist. If a journalist hacks or gains unauthorised access to secure governments systems it is by definition breaking the law. In a democracy, if you don’t like the laws, change the law makers

Let us also not forget, that by publishing unredacted sensitive information it also put many life’s at risk. Assange claims that his release didn’t include the names. However the documents including names were available as a result of wiki leaks and other journalists were then accused. Either way, it was reckless and isn’t what I would call responsible journalism.  

[Tezza1971]

Yeah, let's not forget all those who were exposed by these leaks and hunted down by the Taliban and executed for aiding the allies. Families left without husband's, son's, brothers etc. Oh, and let's not forget the two women who accused Julian of Sexual Assault,  but he skipped bail and fled the country, wonder why he would do that if he was innocent of the allegations as he claimed? Julian belongs in jail and should face charges in America and be punished for his crimes, and those affected by his crimes should receive some form of monetary compensation. I hope the Australian Government does not bring another traitor back like they did with Hicks and the returned ISIS fighters who should have been arrested upon returning and handed back to the Security Forces of the Nation's they committed crimes in for punishment. 

[Pinetree]

12 hours ago, MrNovax said:

It's a shame what governments do to real journalists.  You can push all the false information you want as long as it is in line with the government narrative.  But if you publish real information that shows the murdering, extorting, kidnapping, and terrorism of the state you will be punished.  How people morally justify these institutions is something i will never understand.  

Hopefully, this traitor will go to jail for the rest of his life.  He lives, as we all do in the free world,   under the very protection afforded by the US and  Allies.   War and its aftermath are not pretty, its a down and dirty business ensuring that freedom and so called 'exposing' the very rare obvious bad stuff that always happens in war,  without any  responsibility for the unintended outcomes for those involved in providing the protection is treason indeed.  He can go straight to hell for me, via a tough US Penitentiary. 

[Tezza1971]

Agreed

[thaicm]

Freedom of the press is one thing, publishing stolen information that jeopardizes national security and people's lives is another.  He's right where he belongs, leave him there.

[Grumpish]

And not to be forgotten is his even more serious crime of helping to upset the Establishment apple cart by publishing emails taken from Hilary Clinton's private server.

[MrNovax]

10 hours ago, Pinetree said:

Hopefully, this traitor will go to jail for the rest of his life.  He lives, as we all do in the free world,   under the very protection afforded by the US and  Allies.   War and its aftermath are not pretty, its a down and dirty business ensuring that freedom and so called 'exposing' the very rare obvious bad stuff that always happens in war,  without any  responsibility for the unintended outcomes for those involved in providing the protection is treason indeed.  He can go straight to hell for me, via a tough US Penitentiary. 

What about all the people in those countries that were murdered by the US government based on lies?  War is dirty and there was no need for the millions of people who died based on lies.  And the very bad stuff isnt rare, its common.  

And traitor?  He isnt a US citizen so how can he "betray" a country he doesnt belong to?

[MrNovax]

10 hours ago, Tezza1971 said:

Yeah, let's not forget all those who were exposed by these leaks and hunted down by the Taliban and executed for aiding the allies. Families left without husband's, son's, brothers etc. Oh, and let's not forget the two women who accused Julian of Sexual Assault,  but he skipped bail and fled the country, wonder why he would do that if he was innocent of the allegations as he claimed? Julian belongs in jail and should face charges in America and be punished for his crimes, and those affected by his crimes should receive some form of monetary compensation. I hope the Australian Government does not bring another traitor back like they did with Hicks and the returned ISIS fighters who should have been arrested upon returning and handed back to the Security Forces of the Nation's they committed crimes in for punishment. 

Name a few, because to my knowledge there were none.  

What about all the "husband's, son's, brothers etc." who were killed in wars that should have never happened?  Because they speak a different language and are a different color we shouldnt worry about them?  The US military in conjunction with other "first world" militaries slaughtered innocent civilians and not one person is in jail for that. 

[MrNovax]

2 hours ago, thaicm said:

Freedom of the press is one thing, publishing stolen information that jeopardizes national security and people's lives is another.  He's right where he belongs, leave him there.

Free speech needs to include speech you dont like.  Freedom of the press needs to include all information or it is also not free.  Journalist publish stolen information all the time and nobody bats an eye.  When it goes against the war machine all of a sudden its a bad thing. 

so freedom of speech unless it outs state sponsored murder?  

[Pinetree]

53 minutes ago, MrNovax said:

Name a few, because to my knowledge there were none.  

What about all the "husband's, son's, brothers etc." who were killed in wars that should have never happened?  Because they speak a different language and are a different color we shouldnt worry about them?  The US military in conjunction with other "first world" militaries slaughtered innocent civilians and not one person is in jail for that. 

It sounds like you live in some black and white, goodies and baddies fantasy world that does not exist and never has. Good people do bad things in war,  sometimes, perhaps often times, for very good reasons, that ensure freedom for millions and for generations.  The killings by strategic bombing in WW2 for example.  Exposing these issues doesn't make them go away, it only puts freedom in jeopardy and exposes those who put their own lives at risk to keep others safe. Despite what many armchair critics would have you believe, the western Military is very good at holding their own to account.  People like Snowdon and Assange are leaches, that suck the blood from free societies , while not being held accountable for the consequences of their naivety, cowardice, ignorance and cynicism. Well it will come home to roost for him at least and may persuade others of their ilk to accept the realities for what is done in their name and for the freedoms they enjoy. 

[MrNovax]

1 hour ago, Pinetree said:

It sounds like you live in some black and white, goodies and baddies fantasy world that does not exist and never has. Good people do bad things in war,  sometimes, perhaps often times, for very good reasons, that ensure freedom for millions and for generations.  The killings by strategic bombing in WW2 for example.  Exposing these issues doesn't make them go away, it only puts freedom in jeopardy and exposes those who put their own lives at risk to keep others safe. Despite what many armchair critics would have you believe, the western Military is very good at holding their own to account.  People like Snowdon and Assange are leaches, that suck the blood from free societies , while not being held accountable for the consequences of their naivety, cowardice, ignorance and cynicism. Well it will come home to roost for him at least and may persuade others of their ilk to accept the realities for what is done in their name and for the freedoms they enjoy. 

Snowden and Assange exposed exposed crimes against humanity.  Even if you believe that the way they did it was unethical (which it wasnt), over looking the fact that millions have died due to lies and war crimes while not a single charge was ever brought against anyone is appalling.  

None of these wars have been about freedom, they have all been about money but keep telling yourself that so you can sleep at night.  

[Soidog]

1 minute ago, MrNovax said:

Snowden and Assange exposed exposed crimes against humanity.  Even if you believe that the way they did it was unethical (which it wasnt), over looking the fact that millions have died due to lies and war crimes while not a single charge was ever brought against anyone is appalling.  

None of these wars have been about freedom, they have all been about money but keep telling yourself that so you can sleep at night.  

Sorry but both are dangerous traitors and deserve the life they have made for themselves. They both lived in open democracies and abused the very freedoms a democratic system affords. 

[Tim_Melb]

I don't understand what these Assange supporters hope to achieve. There is evidence he committed crimes in the US. If he is brought back to Australia by politicians it will achieve nothing as in Australia we have separation of the government and the judicial system and rightly so. We also have a more open extradition treaty with the United States than the United Kingdom does. If Assange is here in Australia the United States will just get him extradited from Australia... 

[Tim_Melb]

1 hour ago, MrNovax said:

Snowden and Assange exposed exposed crimes against humanity.  Even if you believe that the way they did it was unethical (which it wasnt), over looking the fact that millions have died due to lies and war crimes while not a single charge was ever brought against anyone is appalling.  

None of these wars have been about freedom, they have all been about money but keep telling yourself that so you can sleep at night.  

The way they exposed the information you refer too was not only unethical but it was illegal. The illegality means that a crime was committed and that is a fact. Whether you like it or not Assange needs to stand trial for his part in those crimes and a jury will decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence not your opinion. 

[Tim_Melb]

3 hours ago, MrNovax said:

Free speech needs to include speech you dont like.  Freedom of the press needs to include all information or it is also not free.  Journalist publish stolen information all the time and nobody bats an eye.  When it goes against the war machine all of a sudden its a bad thing. 

so freedom of speech unless it outs state sponsored murder?  

So it is ok in your opinion for journalists to steal classified information about government employees working investigations under cover in dangerous situations and publish that information openly and there by put the lives of those people in danger? And if those government employees are injured or killed because of the journalists publishing that information that's ok is it? 

This is exactly what Assange is accused of, I am not saying if I believe he is guilty or not but the fact is crimes occurred and there is evidence that shows Assange was involved and as such he needs to stand trial and a jury will decide on his guilt or innocence based on the evidence not your opinion. 

[MrNovax]

24 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

The way they exposed the information you refer too was not only unethical but it was illegal. The illegality means that a crime was committed and that is a fact. Whether you like it or not Assange needs to stand trial for his part in those crimes and a jury will decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence not your opinion. 

it was illegal in the USA, he was not in the USA nor is a US citizen.  

If the constitution actually meant something in today's society (in the USA). it wouldn't be illegal as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The press under US law is unrestricted from publishing information.  

[MrNovax]

17 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

So it is ok in your opinion for journalists to steal classified information about government employees working investigations under cover in dangerous situations and publish that information openly and there by put the lives of those people in danger? And if those government employees are injured or killed because of the journalists publishing that information that's ok is it? 

This is exactly what Assange is accused of, I am not saying if I believe he is guilty or not but the fact is crimes occurred and there is evidence that shows Assange was involved and as such he needs to stand trial and a jury will decide on his guilt or innocence based on the evidence not your opinion. 

yes

[Smithydog]

Freedom of the press cannot be an absolute as it then gives unbounded rights to a singular part of the community that others don't have. By giving total freedom, you in fact inhibit the freedom of others to live the lives they want to, thereby degrading their freedom. Absolutes don't simply work.

There are many in the press who are honourable and responsible. But like other professions, there are the cowboys etc who believe their rights exceed the rights of others. In my opinion, this was the case with Assange and Snowden. They didn't care who they hurt as long as people saw what they thought others should see, regardless of the consequences.

If wrong doing is happening, then of course we expect reporters to bring us the news. But there are boundaries, especially where people can be hurt or even killed. Redact such information. If you don't you have to face the consequences of your actions like any other person. They chose not to and should face the consequences of their irresponsible actions, as should those who chose to publish the information unredacted on the same basis.

[Manu]

9 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

The way they exposed the information you refer too was not only unethical but it was illegal. The illegality means that a crime was committed and that is a fact. Whether you like it or not Assange needs to stand trial for his part in those crimes and a jury will decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence not your opinion. 

"Unethical"? Do you mean the same meaning of the word of, for a start, how Assange is being treated? The same meaning of the word describing the US actions around the globe for more than 100 years?? Unethical, if that's what you think, works only one way???

"Illegal"... cause what? Cause Wikileaks published "classified" documents? Classified documents are mostly (of course not always) to cover wrong-doings of a country, including war crimes, tortures, assassinations, influencing other regimes for economic interests of the perpetretors, etc... Do you think that it is acceptable that mainstream media condemn war crimes of some countries 24/7, but then find unacceptable for some other press to do the same cause it is "classified" documents (classified documents mostly covering illegal actions by the way)?If these actions are somehow found legitimate by a government, so why covering them in classified documents? Well we all know why, cause these actions apart from being ALSO illegal, are morally wrong, "unethicals" (to say the least). Illegal to publish illegal actions of a governement, brilliant.

I advice some here to read Noam Chomsky's Who Rule the World? to learn a little more about words like ethic and illegal but also democracy and human rights. Plenty of officials documents and sources in that book.

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250131089/whorulestheworld

Edited October 15, 2022 by Smithydog
Removed comparative example used of Lese Majeste under Forum Guidlines

[MrNovax]

On 10/14/2022 at 7:41 PM, Smithydog said:

Freedom of the press cannot be an absolute as it then gives unbounded rights to a singular part of the community that others don't have. By giving total freedom, you in fact inhibit the freedom of others to live the lives they want to, thereby degrading their freedom. Absolutes don't simply work.

There are many in the press who are honourable and responsible. But like other professions, there are the cowboys etc who believe their rights exceed the rights of others. In my opinion, this was the case with Assange and Snowden. They didn't care who they hurt as long as people saw what they thought others should see, regardless of the consequences.

If wrong doing is happening, then of course we expect reporters to bring us the news. But there are boundaries, especially where people can be hurt or even killed. Redact such information. If you don't you have to face the consequences of your actions like any other person. They chose not to and should face the consequences of their irresponsible actions, as should those who chose to publish the information unredacted on the same basis.

Allowing the government to sensor the press means you no longer have news, you have propaganda.  And im not sorry if i don't feel bad for any murders who were exposed though i have yet to see anyone point to a single instance of this.   Give me a name of a single person who was actually hurt by these leaks outside of bomb salesmen.  Just one would be great, ill wait.  

[Manu]

4 hours ago, MrNovax said:

Allowing the government to sensor the press means you no longer have news, you have propaganda.  And im not sorry if i don't feel bad for any murders who were exposed though i have yet to see anyone point to a single instance of this.   Give me a name of a single person who was actually hurt by these leaks outside of bomb salesmen.  Just one would be great, ill wait.  

Yeah I thought you looked too alone (he he) in that thread against a legion of …that.  I do not get why people choose the most complicated which is not the nicest  nor the logical way to resolve issues amongst us, humans everywhere that is. The world seems to get a worse place to live and for most, to be angry and too sure of their things seem to be the only understanding of things so therefore understanding how to make things better (??). Freedom of speech once shaken in any way means the beginning of the end of all freedoms , giving up on things our old ones fought for, for us I should believe. Not to be taken as granted, surely the last 3 years showed us that, but something people need to keep fighting for so it is not downgraded in any way, by whom  interest it is to do so (s*** loads) the first step of it all taken away from us for good. Sure why not? But for some to let a human being dying slowly in a concrete box, like no human being, that is the response, and they even write like he deserves it. Illegal publishing about illegal actions killing, bla bla, a huge tail of misery behind it.. That sounds like almost giving up on freedom for something else which I do not understand what that is or even could be.

[Smithydog]

On 10/17/2022 at 11:24 PM, MrNovax said:

Allowing the government to sensor the press means you no longer have news, you have propaganda.  And im not sorry if i don't feel bad for any murders who were exposed though i have yet to see anyone point to a single instance of this.   Give me a name of a single person who was actually hurt by these leaks outside of bomb salesmen.  Just one would be great, ill wait.  

You may well be right that no-one ended up being hurt by the disclosures. But would you have known that at the time? The answer is simply no. There is no way you could make such an assertion. Hindsight is great but useless when the events actually happen.

There was no way that Assange could have similarly known at the time, yet just went ahead, made the decision for everyone else and released the information. What sheer arrogance on his part to think he can speak for the desires of everyone.

If Assange is so keen for the freedom of the press, why no reports on Russia or China? Why his concentration especially focussed on the US? Perhaps, freedom of the press only exists if directed against certain western nations. To me, he is he simply without ethics seeking to hide behind a constitutional provision, like too many seem keen to want to do so.

[Vigo]

Mr. Assange was not a journalist. Giving him the designation is an attempt to distract from what he was a; hacker and a person who made a living off the proceeds of gaining unauthorized access to confidential information. Dress it up any way that you want, call him a hero, offer excuses and justifications, but what he did was centered about the act of hacking. It violated the  privacy of others and was done in a manner where there was no accountability.

Assange shares many of the same atributes of Alex Jones from Info Wars. Both assume that they are accountable to no one and that the  rules of civil society do not apply to them. Both are surrounded by a cult like group of followers who invent excuses and  false narratives to justify the wrongful behaviour. Both are nasty, selfish humans.