back to article Assange ambushes Australian Prime Minister on live TV

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

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Joke

Yeah!

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

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

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

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

8
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Yeah!

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

1
1
Joke

@Sarah Bee

"Julian Assange is not Martin Luther King"

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

1
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: @Sarah Bee

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

3
1

Not only but also

@AC @Sarah Bee → #

Posted Wednesday 16th March 2011 14:42 GMT

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

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

0
1
Anonymous Coward

@Cthonus

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

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

1
0
Pint

Committing treason by proving the US government

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

Henri

3
0
Silver badge

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

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

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

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

0
0

the good Ms Gillard

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

1
0
42
Thumb Up

Great stuff

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

GO Julian, a modern day hero

3
2
Silver badge
WTF?

Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2
2
Silver badge

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

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

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

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

0
0
Paris Hilton

Poor little narcissist

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

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

4
3
Thumb Up

fair go

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

1
0

Very Florid Symptoms

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

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

2
5

Locally reported as

Prime Minister 1, JA 0

I think it was his tie.

1
1
Unhappy

Assange is a tit

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

2
1

Delusional

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

1
7
Thumb Down

Who's the maniac?

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

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

6
0

Re: Who's the maniac?

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

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

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

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

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

2) for hacking computers at two universities;

3) hacking computers at two telecommunications companies;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collateral damage.

2
5
IT Angle

Rude

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

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

0
1
Pint

@rude

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

0
0
Flame

flag waving jerks

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

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

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

5
1

Presumably Assange would have approved...

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

1
1
Silver badge
Grenade

A reply to Gumby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1
0
FAIL

Re: A reply to Gumby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0
2
Silver badge

@Bernard...

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

But lets take a look...

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

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

You go on...

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

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

(I think you get the idea.)

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

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

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

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

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

0
1
Silver badge
Troll

@Gumby....

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

Self-Admitted Troll. Sad.

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

Ad hominem.

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

Ad hominem.

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

Self-effacing claptrap. Nothing new there.

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

Ad hominem.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

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

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

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Before the spelling pedants notice

Apologies for the poor title spelling

0
0
WTF?

youtube link

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

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

???

0
0

Shield?

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

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

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

1
1
Flame

Ass hanger

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

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

Did he commit treason?

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

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

Hell yes!

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

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

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

1
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017