PM has betrayed me: Assange

[Violet_Crumble]

Source: The Age (Australia)

AS THE net closes around WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the notorious whistleblower has accused Prime Minister Julia Gillard of betraying him as an Australian citizen in her eagerness to help the United States attack him and his organisation.

Ahead of his imminent arrest - over an alleged sexual assault in Sweden - Mr Assange yesterday broke cover to lash out at the Gillard government, comparing his treatment to that of former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

''I am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal,'' Mr Assange wrote in a live question-and-answer session on the website of UK newspaper The Guardian.

''However … the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return impossible but they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people.''



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-has-betrayed-me-assange-20101204-18ks8.html

[OregonBlue]

1. It's a little late to play the "victim" card. He did what he did and now he's gonna have to live

with the consequences. I really can't say I have a lot of sympathy. I thought he had some cojones so I hope he doesn't start whining.

HE PICKED THIS FIGHT.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. How is that a 'victim' card?

He's an Australian citizen, and unless the rules have changed, Australian citizens should be protected by their govt, not hung out to dry like Assange and David Hicks were. As an Australian citizen myself, I'm totally disgusted by the lack of spine shown by the Gillard govt...

[OregonBlue]

6. If he didn't know what was gonna happen, he's not all that bright after all. He took on the

powers that be and he will have to live with that decision.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I think most Australians are aware of how our govt sucks up to the US..

We still expect and demand our govt protect us though. I'm not sure why you seem to think that Australian citizens should have no protection at all if we anger the US government. He hasn't broken any laws here, and he should have every right to the same level of protection that any other citizen should have...

[OregonBlue]

31. I don't have an opinion one way or another about the Australian government or what Australian

citizens should do. I'm just saying, he took on the world's leadership and now he's surprised that they are going after him. Either he's a tough hero or a naive do-gooder. It just seems a little late for him to be complaining about the repercussions of his actions.

[EFerrari]

72. Fail. Our rights don't come with an egg timer. n/t

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NeoConsSuck]

78. "He Took On" ????

Please explain that statement. The NY Times is printing his disclosures daily against the wishes of the government leaders. Do you think the NY Times is also "taking on" governments??

[tiny elvis]

80. he is only calling it to our attention nt

[matt819]

92. Wow

So, he's either a tough hero or a naive do-gooder. How very black and white of you. I think the situation is far more nuanced than that.

What's disturbing in your reply, however, is that whether he's a tough hero (and who doesn't like the tough hero?) or a naive do-gooder (root for the underdog), you seem to have nothing but contempt for him. What would he have to do or be for you to view him with less hatred?

[Wabbajack_]

139. It's never wrong to complain about overbearing goverment actions

[tavalon]

159. He isn't surprised

He's pissed. He's also keeping himself in the limelight to keep breathing. A rather smart tactic, actually.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulkienitz]

188. what kind of blame-the-victim crap is this?

Anyone has the right to expect, and loudly demand, fairness and justice from their government, no matter how poor that government's track record in practice may have been in prior cases. You can't just write off representatives of the people on the grounds that you should expect them to fail in their duty, as if past misdeeds somehow constitute an excuse for future ones.

[treestar]

233. Oh so he's a victim now?

:rofl: I thought he was so brave!

He has to face the consequences then. This whining shows he is not the hero he is being made out to be!

[paulkienitz]

267. It shows nothing of the kind.

Do you actually think it's a better idea to keep silent in such a case? Because it's more tough and manly, or something?

[ooglymoogly]

253. Wow; not a well constructed strawman.

You have the legs where the feet should be, the feet in the mouth where the ass should be, with the head stuffed up it. How is one to even recognize it.

[Hissyspit]

199. Where does he seem "surprised?"

He is defending himself.

[No Elephants]

203. You ignored Violet's points. Posting your unsupported opinion 3X does not = making a point

[still_one]

122. What the Wikileaks have demonstrated is that a lot of governments, including the U.S. do NOT have

the people's best interest at heart

[quakerboy]

30. Knowing that something is going to happen

is not the same as excepting that it happening is right.

[Downwinder]

35. Perhaps he does not consider Australia to be a vassal state

as you do.

[truedelphi]

142. Is he whining or simply stating the facts?

Like many of us, he was brought up with the expectation that his government would consider him innocent until proven guilty.

Otherwise, what has all of this meant - the continual notion that we should pay taxes because we need to support our wonderful "democratic" nation, the idea that we need to put so much of our resources in the fight against C9ommunism, and now terrorism in order to preserve "our way of life." ??

And of course, the Aussie population expects even more common sense activity from their government - they have a Single Payer Universal Health Care system, and they have a government that pays for a citizen's higher education.

So I would not be surprised if someone growing up with those assumptions really is confused and perhaps outraged that the rules have changed, and almost overnight.

[axollot]

8. Thank you!! Aussie/American in Fl here. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

22. From Burleigh Head? I love it there!

I've got family peppered all along the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast so I've been there many times.

Anyway, nice to meet another Australian here at DU :)

[axollot]

23. Yes lovely area! Indeed!!

:hug:

Cheers
sandy

[molly77]

17. It is always a surprise when we realize the US dictates policy all

over the world now. And it is always always for the rich bankers and global masters.

[JDPriestly]

90. And decides what its citizens may know or not know.

What is our press doing? They certainly aren't reporting the most important things. Why are we kept in the dark in the first place?

[defendandprotect]

104. Exactly .... this is about keeping Wikileaks info from the public ...

making the story about Assange rather than info in the leaks --

[still_one]

126. You are being too selective, it isn't just the U.S., it is a governments around the world who want

to surpress this

[elehhhhna]

130. "Our" policies make us look more and more like an evil empire every stinkin' day.

Way to go, 'bama.

[pocoloco]

166. The big surprise is that more than a few people accept it!

[Moonbat2]

the entire world

is treating him like the parasite that he is. He was real cocky for a while,I'll give him that.Now it is time to pay the piper




















i'll

[bread_and_roses]

63. So Assange is a "parasite?" eh? What about the blood-soaked monsters he's exposing?

in all their filthy detail? Those are some standards you're revealing by such a term.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

91. Moonbat2, can you please identify three facts you learned from the Wikileaks

documents that you think you should not know?

I can't. I think I can be trusted with everything I've read so far, which, I must admit, is not a whole lot and certainly nothing worth keeping secret.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alarimer]

127. Well I for one am glad these things are being exposed.

Some of it seems like gossip (I mean who really cares if Prince Andrew is an asshole or not)but I have no idea why the CIA or our government should be interested in how our allies deal with their internal decisions like who heads what ministry. We cannot and should not control the entire fucking world. It's about damn time that our government is exposed for what it is: an institution fundamentally uninterested in democracy, here or anywhere else. And it is also about damn time the American sheeple woke up to the monstrous thing we have created.

[tsuki]

183. A lot of it seems like gossip. The credit card and frequent flyer thing got me.

But there is a lot of background there that historians will use for decades.

[JDPriestly]

135. Was the German "mole" outed by name?

I doubt seriously that the presence and name of a mole in a government is really a secret to the government in which the mole is working. Knowing the Germans as I do, and remembering that Angela Merkel was from the former East Germany where snooping and spying were the rule, not the exception, I seriously doubt that the "mole" had not been discovered long before Wikileaks. If he was fired, it was probably because his "outing" meant that Germany could no longer use him as a way to let the US know what Germany wanted them to know but didn't want to say directly. Germans are incredibly thorough and systematic. I seriously doubt that the presence of a "mole" in the office of Angela Merkel was a surprise to them.

You should read more about our spy networks (and the networks of our adversaries) in WWII. And spying was relatively primitive back then.

Assange is not doing anything that the New York Times wouldn't do. It is not getting any information that any responsible news media should get given half a chance.

Remember Judy Miller who used to work for the New York Times. She, like Assange, had inside information. She was a reporter and was ordered to give up the name of her informant. She spent quite a bit of time in jail on contempt charges until she knew that the prosecutor already had the names of her informants.

Judy Miller was in on contempt charges. That is all. She was not convicted of any other crime and served no sentence beyond contempt of court.

So, Assange is not doing anything that Judy Miller didn't do. He has an informant, possibly but not necessarily in the government (some government) that gave him this information, and he is publishing it. He is a member of the media and has the right to do that.

Freedom means having freedom of religion and freedom of the press among other things. It is illegal for an American citizen to out a CIA agent, but I doubt that it is illegal for an Australian citizen to out a CIA agent. In fact, if an American or Australian citizen outed a Chinese or Russian agent, he or she would be viewed as a hero. The press pretty much has the freedom to print confidences they receive and to protect their sources.

By the way, we do not know where Assange has obtained these files or from whom. Could have been a hacker, could have been a foreign government, could have been someone in the US government, could have been a Scooter Libby type in the State Department. We really don't know. So don't assume anything. You don't know whether this information was really obtained illegally. No one knows anything for sure thus far. First rule -- never assume facts until they are corroborated.

[No Elephants]

213. Great post. Thanks.

[donquijoterocket]

257. yeahbut

Don't forget Judy was one of the lead cheerleaders on our run up to the invasion/occupation of Iraq channeling Chalabi for the powers that be who wanted that invasion so she had a little built in leverage and implicit permission for her revelations in that they served the purposes of the power structure mainly the neocons who wanted that war so I doubt there was much inclination in our government at that time to isolate her and prosecute her for her actions. Wikileak's revelations on the other hand embarrassed not only our government and power structure but those of some of our nominal allies in our imperial endeavors so Assange as the face of Wikileaks needs to be cut out and brought to heel.

[defendandprotect]

106. "Hero" is the word I'm hearing .... and benefit to democracy ....

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

148. Yeah, whenever I hear the word "parasite" I instantly think of Wikileaks -

NOT!

Though I do tend to think of AIG, J P Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, your average Insurance OCmpany Executive, your average Pharmaceutical Excecutive, and the Big Shots at the Oil COmpanies and the Dept of Defense.

As well as about 92 Senators, One President, and 492 people in the House Of Representatives.

[RetroLounge]

152. I think you made a wrong turn

:puke:

RL

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

214. Not the entire world. Just a few folks who got leaned on and right leaning Americans.

Besides, how "the world" treats something, especially soon after it happens, has never been an indicium of right or wrong, except maybe among sheeple. Just ask Ellsberg. Or Galileo. Or Jesus.

[ooglymoogly]

258. And are you that piper; or just a wannabe?

If not you give a good impression for either scenario. News flash.....The faux flute you play is just a breadstick made of flat bread and as a piper (oh the humanity) you need some threads.

[Peregrine Took]

141. Sounds like the truth to me. You know, real life and how it is? n/t

[Swagman]

206. Same here Violet Crumble-Gillard & McClelland have gone from heroes

to spineless cowards overnight. WTF is she talking about .."illegal"?. Hasn't the woman heard of fucking court of law that decides these things?

McClelland has been the biggest disappointment of any frigging Labor politician.

What is any different from the New York Times, The Guardian and Wikileaks publishing ?..how can any single one be singled out ?

De Speigal and The Guardian published BEFORE Wikileaks so they should all be hounded. The campaign against Julian shows we are slipping into fascism. He simply a source just as if any reporter were handed the documents.

NOTHING has changed since the 60's..just more and more repression.

[axollot]

3. Jesus....Why is Australia serving him to the US? For WHAT CRIME did he commit in Australia? n/t

[krabigirl]

131. the global elites serve each other.

[Hissyspit]

10. Not really sure how this is playing the victim.

Seems more like pointing out how his elected leader, on the record, has sold out one of the country's citizens. Not whining, and the "cojones" are standing up to his accusers.

[OregonBlue]

19. What did he think would happen? Either he's a brave truth teller or a naive idiot. I have no

problem with what he did but I can't believe that he didn't anticipate the response.

[Lucinda]

32. I think you may be missing his point?

He's pointing out that his government SHOULD be protecting him, but is currying favor with the US instead. It links back to everything that he has said is wrong with the state of things in the world today...

[skepticscott]

94. Well, it may not be a matter of

"currying favor" so much as being threatened in subtle or not-so-subtle ways by the US government (which could find all sorts of ways to screw Australia if it wanted to). The Australian PM may have had to make a decision between cutting loose one of her citizens or allowing harm to many more of them.

[defendandprotect]

107. Agree ... as it begins to look like US is more than ruffled at info coming out .....

and SERIOUSLY wants to put a stop to it --

[Violet_Crumble]

123. I think it's the thought of the same thing being done to the financial world...

That's what seems to be driving the desperation to shut Assange and Wikileaks down...

[defendandprotect]

162. We won't know until we see what does come out this time around ....

and I wouldn't presume that government hasn't or won't move to higher

levels of classifications to keep most secret stuff under wraps.

Not sure, but Assange may have addressed that in a slightly different way/?

Information about the financial world may help all of us to understand

what threads can be pulled to undermine corporations -- indeed, everyone

understanding that they are labor and that neither business nor government

can survive without it -- and certainly not profit without it -- something that

would help in the cause to unite labor.

All of capitalism is based on exploitation -- of nature and humanity.

But, I would add that obviously the government/CIA are very involved with

Global Warming and UFOs -- reports of which are increasing all over the world.

As Pres. Carter made clear to us, information about UFOs is classified at a

higher level than atomic weapons!

[Lucinda]

153. A truly scary thought if true.

:(

[treestar]

232. Why the hell does his government have to "protect him" for

publishing another country's classified documents?

When US citizens break other country's laws, you expect the US to defend those citizens?

[polly7]

50. I can't believe you think he's not entitled to support from his own

Gov't. He's broken no laws.

[Hissyspit]

66. No, it's not either.

False dichotomy.

[DirkGently]

83. You "have no problem" with what he did, but support his being persecuted for it anyway? Incoherent.

[defendandprotect]

108. Why would he expect his own country to abandon him to US "kill the messenger" ...?

[MrMickeysMom]

147. Well, that's just it... I believe he DID anticipate a number of responses...

This may well explain why he went through the steps to encrypt information that would emerge if he "went away". Some people are willing to die for truth when lies and deception run amuck by those who are power crazed and think they can rule the world.

Imagine that.

The way I see it, THE leaked information trumps whatever you or I think. The decision to leak was THAT important. Many contemporary citizens all over the world are unwilling to take that risk. I'm guessing that few Americans or Australians are as willing as he is.

It's anything but naive, and it's certainly not idiotic.

[tavalon]

161. Really?

You can only think in either/or? There are a lot of other explanations.

[No Elephants]

210. Whether or not he anticipated the response is irrelevant. Whether Australia is

fulfilling its responsiblities to its citizens is the point. He says no. You don't say yes or no. You simply keep ignoring the only relevant issue.

[bhikkhu]

26. Yes, much more like simply telling the truth

and then letting people do what they will with it. That an elected government would sell out one of its citizens for political gain is shameful, and certainly deserves to be known.

[Moonbat2]

55. yeah

its a real shocker I agree.



Next thing ya know there will be no tooth fairy

[Kaleko]

11. That says a lot about

you. Nothing about the issues at hand.

[eilen]

13. Sheesh, how dare he behave like a journalist.

I guess the definition these days of journalism is sketchy, most of the tv ones don't even know what it means and there is a noted absence of foreign bureaus for our newspapers and our broadcast news services.

Nixon would have loved the new rules.

[defendandprotect]

109. So true -- K&R ....

Our Congress has failed to pick up the "journalist" issue --

so many dead and so easily killed these days --

PLUS that old issue they've never corrected -- CIA journalists infiltrating our "free press."

They've never banned it.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogday]

33. He is not the victim, we the people of US are the victims. Our

right to know what our government is doing is predicated upon the actions of people like Assange, who publicize it. Pentagon Papers were printed by the NYT. Should they not of done that either?

[laughingliberal]

98. +1 nt

[defendandprotect]

111. +1 --

[MrMickeysMom]

36. By that logic, we should never value any of our constitutional rights

... and as far as Julian Assange picking "this fight", what fight might that have been?

A fight for constitutional rights?

You wouldn't fight for your constitutional rights, then, I assume? You certainly don't appear to give a shit if anyone else's were trampled upon.

[laylah]

37. Huh?

[liberation]

44. But it is never too soon to blame the "victim"

... yet another basic republican character flaw all too eagerly picked up by the "new" Dems.

Oh the "changes"... when will wonders cease?

[border_town]

49. I don't understand how he is playing 'victim"

He is being accused of a crime in Sweden that is so stupid and was thrown out earlier this year because of the leaks. He is a victim.

[howard112211]

56. So you are outing yourself as an enemy of the concept of free press?

Good to see who believes in the constitution and human right and who doesn't.

[EFerrari]

57. Calling things by their name is not victimhood.

[PatrynXX]

61. Ahem .. knee jerk

Usually doesn't happen from Dems but from time to time it happens to the best of us.

He comes from a country that in the past year to 2 years turned way right wing. (since Rupert Murdoch controls the only paper the Australians read, thats a no brainer. Kicked the independent adult site abby winters out of the country. Oh but if you have big boobs and are pro porn. You can stay. Sick political system in Australia. About as broken as ours. I wouldn't side on Australia's side even if it killed me. This statement just makes me a bigger supporter of wikileaks. Not that I want to be, but if we want to be telling other nations that free speech is our thing, this isn't the way to do it. This isn't Anarchy. The leaks have redactions.

[Blue State Bandit]

74. Who's playing the "victim card" here?

This is a basic media tactic. One that may just keep him alive. The only way for him to succeed in this campaign against corrupt government and corporate players is to shame them in the eye's of the public.The louder he complains about the actions of these entities, the harder it will become for them to deny him due process.

The only "victim cards" being played here is from those who stand to be exposed by JA's actions.

[Better Believe It]

85. So are victims of repression in other nations and the ACLU also "whining"?

While you are demonstrating incredible courage in standing up in defense of those who want to repress civil liberties and freedom of the press?

[JDPriestly]

89. He still has lots more to do, and we, the people, suffer from the fact

that we lack the information to do our job well -- which is to vote and participate in a meaningful way in our democracy.

Why does our supposedly democratic government keep the kinds of secrets from us that we see on so many of the Wikileaks documents? It's perverse.

[laughingliberal]

96. So, telling the truth about what's going on is 'playing the victim card?' ROFL!

I'm gonna say the people behind all the shadow governments and illegal wars picked this fight.

After all, if they'd been operating by the rule of law or transparently, there'd really have been nothing for him to release.

I'd say they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are the ones playing the 'victim card.' Can't wait til he releases what he has on the banksters.

[still_one]

120. and who picked the fight to invade a country based on a lie, and based on that lie we got the

patriot act.

Obviously you don't have a lot of sympathy for him. Do you have sympathy for the people in Iraq that were killed in our name?

How about the bankers, which he plans to expose, sympathy for them?

What his leaks have shown is that their is more similarities between our adversaries then many of us would like to face.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

128. But he's not being prosecuted for revealing secrets.

He's being prosecuted for two rapes he didn't commit. That is not a legitimate and foreseeable consequence of revealing state secrets. It's banana republic bullshit, and it shouldn't happen in modern Western democracies.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

192. You have evidence he didn't commit them?, i'm sure Assange and Sweden both would like to see it n/t

[1monster]

238. Assange has not been charged with rape in either case. In one case, I have not heard any

details except that it wasn't rape, and in the other, the charge was that he did not perform coitus interruptus when the condom broke. There is no suggestion or allegation that coercion of any kind was used. In fact, the sexual action was called "consensual."

And here's a thought to consider. Both women knew Assange before whatever sexual relationships developed and both women knew each other before whatever sexual relationships developed. Hell hath no fury like that of two women who know each other finding out that they both were playing footsie with the same man.

Young women will blame each other, with scratching, biting and pulling each ohter hair ensuing. Older and more experienced women will go for vengence against the male and then woe unto him!

When the fact that the original charges were thrown out by a prosecutor senior to the one filing the charges and then restored after a much higher level prosecutor reinstated them, one is led to the very reasonable doubt of the integrity of the charges.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

264. and I think if Assange is the hero many claims he is

then he should go and answer the questions they want to ask him so he can clear his name.

He does himself no favors by being on the run

[ooglymoogly]

261. See that is where you have your head in the sand

No indeed they would not; and that is the whole point. Evidence to the contrary would make them nothing but charlatans promoting fascism with nothing but batshit crazy.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

263. sorry to tell ya this, but i actually believe in the swedish justice system, so yes

i do think they would want proof that he didn't commit any crimes if there is any.

Now the girls might not have want any evidence but thats a totally different kettle.

[No Elephants]

217. Excellent point (though I don't know if he is innocent or not).

[JDPriestly]

246. We have to presume innocence. The prosecutor bears the burden of proof.

And in the US the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal matter.

[Iliyah]

167. He's ok

Murdoch from fake news is supporting him.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nyy1998]

236. Agreed

[stray cat]

4. And the space aliens are after him

[Hissyspit]

5. Dumb.

Why don't you just stop?

[OregonBlue]

7. LOL. Thanks for that one.

[Hissyspit]

12. Why? It's stupid.

The Australian Prime Minister has attacked Assange in public, calling for illegal actions against him under Australian law, and it is documented.

How in hell is that like space aliens in even one little bit?

Not that I don't have a sense of humor.

[OregonBlue]

16. From my point of view, Assange took on the world. He has to live with it now.

Either he's a tough hero or a naive idiot. In my humble opinion, it's just a little late for him to be crying foul.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. He angered the Americans. That's not the world...

Why do you seem to think that the Australian govt should turn against him because he pissed off the Americans? Do you think Australia should be the fawning lapdogs of the US and that our citizens shouldn't be afforded similar rights to what the US gives to its own citizens?

Here's what Julia Gillard's going to have to live with, knowing as she does that her majority is a razor-thin one. She's going to have to live with me and possibly many other habitual Labor voters not voting Labor next election and voting Green instead. I refuse to vote for a government that won't protect its own citizens...

[boppers]

39. Actually, he started with Somalia and Kenya

Assange and crew have taken on powerful forces all over the world.

Start here and scroll down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Pre-2009

[Violet_Crumble]

41. That's not the world, let alone 'powerful forces'...

Though I guess all those powerful countries like Somalia and Kenya can hold hands and sing 'We Are The World'.

Face it. The Australian govt is behaving like a spineless and submissive puppy because of the US and not wanting to displease it, even to the extent that just like the Howard govt they'll sacrifice the rights of Australian citizens to please the US...

[NeoConsSuck]

68. The Australian government is now, and has been since b*sh

been a spineless and submissive puppy of American government.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. I was hoping it would have improved since the end of the Howard govt...

That was a pretty futile hope :)

[NeoConsSuck]

150. Read this:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/gree-d04.shtml

[boppers]

81. I take it you didn't follow the link....

Somalia, Kenya, Switzerland, Caymans, The US, The UK, Australia, Thailand, Peru, Iran, Ivory Coast, Iceland... these are just *some* of the countries embarrassed *before* the cable leaks.

Assange has been on Australia's shit list since 2009, when he exposed the Labor government's attempted internet censorship blacklists.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. I did. Trying to pretend that Australia isn't sucking up to the US on this is pathetic...

Why is it that you seem to think displeasing the Australian govt at some point (and there's a shitload of Australians who've been involved in exposing the filtering crap) excuses him not being given the protection any Australian citizen in trouble should get from our govt?

[boppers]

97. Projection is a dangerous thing.

I was making the point that he's been pissing off many nations.

I didn't say anything about what protections he did, or did not, deserve, so you're completely off base on what I "seem to think".

[Violet_Crumble]

116. Then I suggest you don't engage in it...

Assuming that you know what I've read or haven't isn't dangerous, it's just silly...

You appear to be missing the obvious point that he's pissed off the US govt, which is why the Australian govt has betrayed him. Do you really think Australia gives a flying fuck if he pissed off the Kenyans or Somalis? No. The reason the Australian govt is behaving the way it is is due to wanting to please the Americans. Feel free to try to dispute that, but somehow I doubt anyone who has any knowledge of the way Australian foreign policy has worked over the decades would even attempt something so pointless...

[U4ikLefty]

117. We know what you "think" boppers

[Violet_Crumble]

125. I actually don't as I haven't seen any other posts from them about Assange...

..though I am starting to get a sneaking suspicion from trying to follow what they're arguing here...

[No Elephants]

221. Very fair of you. Sometimes, a poster's posts have such a consistent POV that

we assume they will bat a thousand. But, you're absolutely right, there just might be that one post in 10,000 that is different and we should never assume.

I'm not the Wizard of Oz and don't even play him on TV, but you do get my award for fairness. (Sadly for us both, no check comes with it.)

[ronnie624]

191. No, he's pissing off the political leaders of many nations.

That isn't necessarily the same as the people of those nations.

[Swagman]

211. Wrong-he isn't "pissing off many nations"..just the spineless politicians

who run them. Everything I have read tells me the vast majority of ordinary citizens support Julian Assange.

[ronnie624]

190. It is the political leaders of those countries that are upset.

It will be interesting to see some polls recording the opinions of the people of the world. The opinions of the elites don't concern me near as much.

[boppers]

197. You make an interesting point.

It's not always political leaders... sometimes it's bankers, royalty, clan chiefs...

..but it seems to always be "those with power".

[MrMickeysMom]

40. Your opinion is not "humble"...

It's unfounded and you don't appear to be able to explain it.

Wake up and smell the coffee. WE SHOULD BE CRYING FOUL. Do you not realize that his fight with "the world" is to do no more than expose the truth about how persons in our highest levels of government spy and lie about civil rights?

He's a tough hero and a better person than we'll probably ever be for having done what he's doing.

Trumped up charges of unfounded sexual abuse... calls from the fringe to assassinate him, torture him and turn the back on what this country has fought many times over to protect - our rights under this constitution.

What Assange has done is nothing more than expose the lies across many levels. Instead of opening your eyes, you have this humble opinion that he should hang out to dry, flapping in the breeze.

Who's the naive idiot?

[OregonBlue]

93. This may come as a great surprise but not everyone agrees with what Assange did and not everyone

thinks he's a hero. I haven't decided what I think about it yet. I plan to reserve judgment until I see what comes of it for good or bad.

I am however not surprised that many here at DU are more than willing to attack me because I don't agree with them.

Mr. Assange made a choice. Maybe it was good and maybe it was bad and maybe more of our young men and women will die because of it and maybe it will be some help toward ending the war and fewer will die. I don't know and I don't think DUers do either. It was his choice.

I assume that, since he seems to be an intelligent person, he was prepared for the reaction and willing to suffer the consequences. If not, that's too bad. If so, then he will be fine whatever comes. I don't really need DU to tell me what to think about it all. And I don't need DU to tell me whether he is right or wrong.

Remember, opinions are like aholes.

[MrMickeysMom]

112. You really want to wait and see before judgement?

What I wrote after you IS an opinion. What you say in response could be called back peddling. But, maybe I should reserve my judgement, cause you're gonna reserve your judgement.

When you decide to read anything of significance as to what this guy has exposed, you'll THEN have some evidence. Reading is good.

Meanwhile, you can call this guy a possible idiot, anyone who questions who the idiot is is attacking you for doing so.

:wtf:

[OregonBlue]

124. Aren't we just having a little hissy fit. LOL.. Didn't mean to trample on your hero worship.

[Hissyspit]

134. "hero worship"

I thought you were reserving judgment and had not formed an opinion. This post and your reaction to the ridiculous joke post says otherwise.

[OregonBlue]

136. I believe if you read the comment you will see that I say YOUR hero worship, not mine.

I am reserving judgment. Don't know why you are getting so upset. It's just my opinion. And it's just your opinion. It's not life or death or anything.

[MrMickeysMom]

143. I know you can stay on task...

... and keep the conversations you're having here straight -

Your posts are the ones appearing defensive after judging things you insist you haven't judged yet.

Hissyspit's and my posts appear to be the ones that do not back-peddle, are based on reading news, and question you.

Personally, I'm giving you time to read what you've judged already. You might have something to say after that. bold move.

[OregonBlue]

146. LOL.

[MrMickeysMom]

154. :-^-)

I'm very happy to oblige.

The world needs more laughing out loud, I say.

[Hissyspit]

149. I know that. I am not hero worshiping anyone. That's the point.

If you are reserving judgment, why do you laugh at a joke that mocks the one you are reserving judgment on when the joke is a clear, but falsely based, mocking of the person you are reserving judgment on.

I'm not really upset.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

133. I just want you to explain why you think that irrelevant joke is funny.

Assange is not acting like he believes in space aliens. It is completely non-equivalent, no matter what you may think of WikiLeaks, and therefore not funny. Some opinions are more fact-based than others.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

219. Is that why you keeping posting YOUR one opinion over and over?

P.S. Do you really expect anyone to buy that you haven't made up your mind? You've posted nothing but negative things in pejorative terms about Assange--picked fight, victim, whine, etc.

And, as another posted noted in response to another post of yours (maybe #`9?), you're being incoherent if your position is that what he did may turn out to be okay in your eyes (once you do "make up your mind),, but you're sure right now he deserves betrayal from his own country, So, incoherent or disingenuous are the only possibilities I see as to your claim that you haven't5 made up your mind.

[1monster]

241. The actions that Assange made available to the world to read were made by YOUR

representatives in YOUR name without your knowledge. Some of those actions were at best unethical and a case could be easily made that they were illegal.

Since those actions were made in your name, YOU could be held accountable.

Since you seem to support the classificaton of unethical and criminal actions by YOUR government, are you willing to stand trial and be held accountable for thos actions which were committed in YOUR name without your knowledge? Especially since you prefer not to know what is being done?

[DFLforever]

45. I go with your second choice

Naive but not likely an idiot.

Naive if he believed this document dump of US cables would actually achieve or improve anything.

But it's probably smart to complain in public when nation states are after you.

[liberation]

47. "humble" does not mean what you think it does...

... like a lot of other things, sadly.

[Hissyspit]

60. What does that have to do with belief in space aliens?

He's countering the attacks. It's what he's done from the beginning of his personal appearances. PM needed to be called out.

It was an ill-informed, non-analogous joke.

[nashville_brook]

102. so, from your point of view, anyone who heroically defends The People from The Power DESERVES

swift condemnation and punishment.

[tavalon]

163. He's a smart player

I know it's not one of your choices, but it is the most likely scenario. If he stays in the limelight, he stays out of a coffin (maybe).

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

218. How many times do you think it's okay to post the same, irrelevant, unsupported opinion on one

thread? Please have more respect for people's time.

And no, it's not too late for him to cry foul. This just happened. You might expect one sports team to foul another, but it's still a foul and everyone, especially the player fouled on, has a right to label it for what it is.

[JDPriestly]

95. I wonder what Australian law prohibits publishing documents

labeled "secret" by the United States government?

Does this mean that Australia enforces the secrecy laws of the U.S.?

If so, does that mean that Australia does not conduct intelligence operations to find out the secrets of the U.S.?

I would be quite interested in learning the response of the Australian government to these questions. I don't believe that the U.S. enforces Australian secrecy laws. And I would bet you anything that we conduct intelligence operations to find out Australia's secrets.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Did any of them look like Dick Cheney?

Just giving a bit of an opening to introduce him into the 'discussion' ;)

[Mojorabbit]

9. It shows there really is no place to hide

the world is smaller and the ptb will all assist one another against any rebellious sort.

[sabrina 1]

15. I was hoping she might be an improvement over the last

lap dog PM in Australia.

I don't know that his arrest is 'imminent'. As I understand it, his attorneys have stated that he is available to speak to anyone who wishes to speak to him. All they have to do is to contact his attorneys, but so far, no one has. The Interpol 'warrant' is not an actual warrant as I understand it. I hope he has friends all over the world who will be willing to hide him when necessary. I'm sure he does.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

42. +1

[DeSwiss]

18. I still can't understand....

...what "law" that this man is subject to that would prompt his arrest? He is not a US citizen so how can he be subject to and held responsible for upholding our laws?

- This is fucking STUPID!!!

K&R

[harun]

27. You are using your brain. You will be flagged for sure....

99% of people aren't looking at what is really going on.

He was in Switzerland, they brought up charges. He said, fine have me come in and clear my name. They never even asked for him to come in and talk to authorities. He waited for a month telling them to resolve the issue. He goes to the UK. They issue a detention request, not an arrest warrant. It isn't mandatory Interpol arrest anyone because of this, it just says a host country can if they want arrest the person. All it would do is bring him in and he would talk to authorities. They are only using this for propaganda purposes. If they wanted justice he is willing to come in and talk to them, they don't.

Nonsense. They want people arguing about Assange, and not paying attention to the details of the leaks.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Some countries, such as Australia have standing extradition treaty with the US.

So for crimes such as receiving stolen property, and language like that, he can be deported to the US from AU to stand trial in the US for crimes committed against the United States.

Which is probably why he isn't in AU right now.


Treaty of Extradition between the United States of America and Australia
Extradition

TIAS 8234

27 U.S.T. 957; 1974 U.S.T. LEXIS 130

May 14, 1974, Date-Signed

May 8, 1976, Date-In-Force

STATUS:

<*1> Treaty signed at Washington May 14, 1974;
Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America December 1, 1975;
Ratified by the President of the United States of America December 16, 1975;

Ratified by Australia December 22, 1975;
Ratifications exchanged at Canberra April 8, 1976;

Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America May 5, 1976;
Entered into force May 8, 1976.

TREATY ON EXTRADITION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AUSTRALIA

TEXT:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

CONSIDERING THAT:

The Treaty on Extradition between the United States of America and Australia was signed at Washington on
May 14, 1974, the original of which Treaty is hereto annexed;

The Senate of the United States of America by its resolution of December 1, 1975, two-thirds of the Senators
present concurring therein, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Treaty;

The Treaty was ratified by the President of the United States of America on December 16, 1975, in pursuance
of the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been duly ratified on the part of Australia;

The respective instruments of ratification were exchanged at Canberra on April <*2> 8, 1976;

It is provided in Article XXI of the Treaty that the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days after the exchange
of instruments of ratification;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States of America, proclaim and make public the
Treaty, to the end that it shall be observed and fulfilled with good faith on and after May 8, 1976, by the
United States of America and by the citizens of the United States of America and all other persons subject to
the jurisdiction thereof.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed this proclamation and caused the Seal of the United States of
America to be affixed.

DONE at the city of Washington this fifth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred
seventy-six and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundredth.

The United States of America and Australia, desiring to make more effective the cooperation of the two
countries for the reciprocal extradition of offenders, agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

Each Contracting Party agrees, under the conditions and circumstances established by this Treaty,
reciprocally to deliver up persons found in its territory who have been charged with or convicted <*3> of any
of the offenses mentioned in Article II of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other Contracting
Party, or outside that territory under the conditions specified in Article IV of this Treaty.

ARTICLE II

(1) Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the following offenses
provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year or by death:

1. Murder or willful murder; assault with intent to commit murder.

2. Manslaughter.

3. Aggravated or willful wounding or injuring; assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

4. Unlawful throwing or application of any corrosive or injurious substances upon the person of
another.

5. Rape; indecent assault, including unlawful sexual acts with or upon children.

6. Illegal abortion.

7. Procuring, or trafficking in, women or young persons for immoral purposes; living on the earnings
of prostitution.

8. Abandoning or exposing a child when the life of that child is or is likely to be injured or
endangered.

9. Bigamy.

10. Kidnapping; child stealing; abduction; false imprisonment.

11. Robbery.

12. Burglary; housebreaking or any similar <*4> offense.

13. Larceny.

14. Embezzlement.

15. Obtaining any property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or other form of
deception.

16. An offense against the law relating to bribery.

17. Extortion.

18. Receiving any property, money or valuable securities knowing the same to have been
unlawfully obtained.

19. Fraud by an agent, bailee, banker, factor or trustee, by a director or officer of a company or
by a promoter of a company, whether existing or not.

20. An offense relating to counterfeiting or forgery.

21. Perjury; subornation of perjury; conspiring to defeat the course of justice.

22. Arson.

23. An act done with the intention of endangering the safety of any person traveling upon a
railway or in any aircraft or vessel or other means of transportation.

24. Any seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence, or by
any other form of intimidation, of an aircraft.

25. Piracy, by statute or by law of nations; revolt on board a vessel against the authority of the
master of the vessel.

26. Malicious injury to property.

27. An offense against the bankruptcy laws.

28. An offense against the laws relating to narcotics, dangerous drugs or <*5> psychotropic
substances.
29. Dealing in slaves.

(2) Extradition shall also be granted for any other offenses that are made extraditable under the extradition
laws of Australia and which are felonies under the laws of the United States of America.

(3) Extradition shall also be granted for any offense against a federal law of the United States of America of
which one of the above-mentioned offenses is a substantial element, even if transporting or transportation or
the use of the mails or of interstate facilities is also an element of the specific offense.

(4) Extradition shall also be granted for aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, being an
accessory before or after the fact to, or attempting or conspiring to commit, any of the offenses mentioned in
the preceding paragraphs of this Article.

(5) If extradition is requested for any offense mentioned in a preceding paragraph of this Article and that
offense is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year
or by death, that offense shall be extraditable under the provisions of this Treaty whether or not the laws of
both Contracting Parties would place that <*6> offense within the same category of offenses made
extraditable by that preceding paragraph of this Article and whether or not the laws of the requested State
denominate the offense by the same terminology.

ARTICLE III

(1) For the purposes of this Treaty, the territory of a Contracting Party means all the territory under the
jurisdiction of that Contracting Party, including airspace and territorial waters, and also includes -

(a) any vessel registered in any territory under the jurisdiction of that Contracting Party; and

(b) any aircraft registered in any such territory provided that the aircraft is in flight when the
relevant offense is committed.

(2) For the purposes of this Treaty -

(a) the territory under the jurisdiction of a Contracting Party includes the Territories for the
international relations of which that Contracting Party is responsible;

(b) an aircraft shall be considered in flight from the moment when the power is applied for the
purpose of take-off until the moment when the landing run ends.

ARTICLE IV

When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the
requesting State -

(a) if the United States of America <*7> is the requested State – the executive authority of the
United States of America; or

(b) if Australia is the requested State – the

Attorney-General of Australia,

shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over
such an offense committed in similar circumstances.

ARTICLE V

(1) Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own nationals under this Treaty but the
executive authority of each Contracting Party shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it
considers that it is proper to do so.

(2) For the purposes of this Article -

(a) a reference to the executive authority of a Contracting Party shall, in the case of Australia,
be construed as a reference to the Attorney-General of Australia;

(b) Australian protected persons shall be deemed to be nationals of Australia; and

(c) the nationality of a person shall be determined to be that which he held at the time when he
was charged with the offense for which his extradition is requested.

ARTICLE VI

Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence is found sufficient, according to the laws in the territory
where the person whose <*8> extradition is requested is found, either to justify his trial or committal for trial
if the offense with which he is charged or its equivalent had been committed in that territory or to prove that
he is the identical person convicted by the courts of the requesting State.

ARTICLE VII

(1) Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

(a) when the person whose extradition is requested is being proceeded against, has been tried
and discharged or punished, or has been pardoned, in the territory of the requested State for the
offense for which his extradition is requested;

(b) when the prosecution for the offense has become barred by lapse of time according to the
laws of the requesting State; or

(c) when the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the
person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the
purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of a political character.

(2) If any question arises whether a case comes within the provisions of subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1) of
this Article, the requested State shall decide that question.

ARTICLE VIII

If, under <*9> the law of the requesting State, an offense for which the extradition of a person is requested,
or any other offense for which he may be detained or tried under paragraph (1) of Article XIV, is subject to a
penalty of death but the law of the requested State does not provide for such a penalty in a similar case, the
requested State may recommend to the requesting State that any punishment imposed for any of those
offenses be a less severe punishment.

ARTICLE IX

When the person whose extradition is requested is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the
territory of the requested State for an offense other than that for which extradition has been requested, his
surrender may be deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings and the full execution of any punishment
that may be or may have been imposed on him.

ARTICLE X

The determination that extradition based upon the request therefor should or should not be granted shall be
made in accordance with the law of the requested State and the person whose extradition is sought shall
have the right to use such remedies and recourses as are provided by that law.

ARTICLE XI

(1) The request for extradition shall be made through <*10> the diplomatic channel.

(2) The request shall be accompanied by a description of the person sought, a statement of the facts of the
case, the text of the applicable laws of the requesting State including the law defining the offense, the law
prescribing the punishment for the offense and the law relating to the limitation of the legal proceedings.

(3) When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a
warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting State and by such evidence as,
according to the laws of the requested State, would justify his trial or committal for trial if the offense had
been committed there, including evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of
arrest refers.

(4) When the request relates to a person already convicted, it must be accompanied by the judgment of
conviction and sentence, if any, passed upon him in the territory of the requesting State, by a statement, if
applicable, showing how much of the sentence has not been served and by evidence proving that the person
requested is the person to whom the judgment refers.

(5) The warrant of arrest and <*11> deposition or other evidence, given under oath or affirmed, and the
judicial documents establishing the existence of the conviction, or certified copies of those documents, shall
be admitted in evidence in the examination of the request for extradition when -

(a) in the case of a request by Australia – those documents or certified copies bear the
signature, or are accompanied by the attestation, of a judge, magistrate or officer of Australia or
are authenticated by the official seal of the Attorney-General and, in any case, are certified by
the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States of America in Australia; or

(b) in the case of a request by the United States of America – the warrant, if any, bears an
original signature, or the other documents are certified, by a judge, magistrate or officer of the
United States of America and, in any case, are authenticated by the oath of a witness or sealed
with the official seal of the Department of State on behalf of the Secretary of State or of the
Department of Justice on behalf of the Attorney General.

ARTICLE XII

(1) In case of urgency a Contracting Party may apply for the provisional arrest of the person sought <*12>
pending the presentation of the request for extradition through the diplomatic channel.

(2) The application shall contain a description of the person sought, an indication of intention to request the
extradition of the person sought and a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or a judgment of
conviction against that person, and such further information, if any, as would be necessary to justify the issue
of a warrant of arrest had the offense been committed, or the person sought been convicted, in the territory
of the requested State.

(3) On receipt of such an application the requested State shall take the necessary steps to secure the arrest
of the person claimed.

(4) A person arrested upon such an application shall be set at liberty upon the expiration of forty-five days
from the date of his arrest if a request for his extradition accompanied by the documents specified in Article XI
has not been received.

(5) Paragraph (4) of this Article shall not prevent the institution of proceedings with a view to extraditing the
person sought if the request is subsequently received.

ARTICLE XIII

(1) If the requested State requires additional evidence or information to enable it to <*13> decide on the
request for extradition, that State may request that such evidence or information be furnished within such
period as it specifies.

(2) If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is
not sufficient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested
State, he shall be discharged from custody.

(3) The discharge of a person from custody under paragraph (2) of this Article shall not bar the requesting
State from submitting another request in respect of the same offense.

ARTICLE XIV

(1) A person extradited under this Treaty may be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting
State for any offense mentioned in Article II for which the person could be convicted upon proof of the facts
upon which the request for extradition was based.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this Article, a person extradited under this Treaty shall not be
detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting State for an offense other than that for which
extradition has been granted, or be extradited by that State to a third State, unless -

(a) he has left the <*14> territory of the requesting State after his extradition and has
voluntarily returned to it;

(b) he has not left the territory of the requesting State within thirty days after being free to do
so; or

(c) the offense concerned is one for which the requested State has consented to his detention,
trial or punishment or to his extradition to a third State and is an offense mentioned in Article II.

(3) A request for the consent of the requested State under subparagraph (c) of paragraph (2) of this Article
shall be accompanied by such information and documents as are requested by that State.

(4) This Article does not apply to offenses committed after the extradition.

ARTICLE XV

A requested State, upon receiving two or more requests for the extradition of the same person either for the
same offense, or for different offenses, shall determine to which of the requesting States it will extradite the
person sought, taking into consideration the circumstances and particularly the possibility of a later extradition
between the requesting States, the seriousness of each offense, the place where the offense was committed,
the nationality and residence of the person sought, the dates upon which <*15> the requests were received
and the provisions of any extradition agreements between the requested State and the other requesting State
or States.

ARTICLE XVI

(1) The requested State shall promptly communicate to the requesting State through the diplomatic channel
the decision on the request for extradition.

(2) Where extradition of a person for an offense is granted, the person shall be conveyed by the appropriate
authorities of the requested State to a port or airport in the territory of that State agreed between that
State and the requesting State.

(3) If a warrant or order for the extradition of a person sought has been issued by the competent authority
and he is not removed from the territory of the requested State within such time as is prescribed by the laws
of that State, he may be set at liberty, and the requested State may subsequently refuse to extradite that
person for the same offense.

(4) Australia is not required to extradite a person before the expiration of fifteen days after the date on
which he has been held judicially to be liable to extradition, or, if proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus have
been brought, before the expiration of fifteen days after the final <*16> decision of the competent court has
been given.

ARTICLE XVII

(1) To the extent permitted under the law of the requested State and subject to the rights of third parties,
which shall be duly respected, all articles found in the requested State that have been acquired as a result of
the offense or may be required as evidence shall, if the requesting State so requests, be surrendered if
extradition is granted.

(2) Subject to the qualifications of paragraph (1) of this Article, the above-mentioned articles shall, if the
requested State so requests, be surrendered to the requesting State even if the extradition, having been
agreed to, cannot be carried out owing to the death or escape of the person sought.

(3) Where the law of the requested State or the rights of third parties so require, any articles so surrendered
shall be returned to the requested State free of charge if that State so requests.

ARTICLE XVIII

(1) Expenses related to the transportation of the person sought to the requesting State shall be paid by the
requesting State.

(2) The requested State shall make all necessary arrangements for, and meet the cost of, the representation
of the requesting State in any proceedings arising <*17> out of a request for extradition.

(3) No pecuniary claim, arising out of the arrest, detention, examination and surrender of persons sought
under the terms of this Treaty, shall be made by the requested State against the requesting State.

ARTICLE XIX

(1) The right to transport through the territory of one of the Contracting Parties a person surrendered to the
other Contracting Party by a third State shall be granted on request made through the diplomatic channel.

(2) In the case of a national of the requested State, the request shall establish that conditions are present
which would warrant extradition of the person by the State of transit.

(3) The request may be refused if reasons of public order are opposed to the transit.

(4) Permission for the transit of a person surrendered shall include authorization for accompanying officials to
hold that person in custody or request and obtain assistance from authorities in the State of transit in
maintaining custody.

(5) The Party to which the person has been extradited shall reimburse the Party through whose territory such
person is transported for any expenses incurred by the latter in connection with such transportation.

ARTICLE XX

This <*18> Treaty applies to offenses mentioned in Article II committed before, on or after the date on which
this Treaty enters into force, provided that no extradition shall be granted for an offense committed before
that date which was not an offense under the laws of both Contracting Parties at the time of its commission.

ARTICLE XXI

(1) This Treaty is subject to ratification and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in Canberra as
soon as possible.

(2) This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days after the exchange of instruments of ratification. (May 8, 1976.)

(3) This Treaty may be terminated by either Contracting Party giving notice of termination to the other
Contracting Party at any time and the termination shall be effective six months after the date of receipt of
such notice.

(4) This Treaty shall terminate and replace, as between the Contracting Parties to the present Treaty, the
Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Great Britain of December 22, 1931, n2 as made
applicable to Australia. <*19>

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -Footnotes- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

n2 TS 849; 47 Stat. 2122.

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -End Footnotes- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have
signed this Treaty.

DONE at Washington this fourteenth day of May, 1974.

SIGNATORIES:



GERALD R. FORD

By the President:

JOSEPH JOHN SISCO

Acting Secretary of State

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

FOR AUSTRALIA:

[DeSwiss]

52. It's still Bullshit. n/t

[JDPriestly]

100. So, are the documents "property"?

18. Receiving any property, money or valuable securities knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.

And if so, whose property? Seems to me that they are the property of the U.S. government which is the property of the people of the U.S.

I cannot imagine that espionage work is considered receiving unlawfully obtained property. If it is, the US government is guilty of it, and many of our agents including possibly some of our diplomats should be extradited.

Didn't Hillary Clinton request that "diplomats" steal credit card numbers and DNA on behalf of the State Dept.?

Isn't the American government suspected of having wiretapped the information of other countries and/or their diplomats, especially at the UN?

Does that mean that the folks who do the spying for the U.S., many of whom do not qualify for diplomatic immunity could be extradited from the U.S. to the foreign country from which they steal information?

The logic here is quite interesting.

[AtheistCrusader]

160. Not my doing, I merely predict

how they will attempt to railroad him, make him miserable, keep him locked up as long as possible, and abuse him as much as possible.

[JDPriestly]

176. You are probably right in that respect.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

224. Maybe. Please see also Reply 229.

[InkAddict]

110. Gerald Ford?????? I don't recall voting for him or the other guy.

Was there one?

[No Elephants]

222. Frankly, I did not bother to read all of that treaty, but my eyes did hit

(2) Extradition shall also be granted for any other offenses that are made extraditable under the extradition
laws of Australia and which are felonies under the laws of the United States of America.

I wonder if publishing classified info is a felony and if Australian law made felonies under the laws of its treaty partners--or at least felonies re: publishing classified info--an extraditable offense.

[AtheistCrusader]

243. That clause seems like a huge catch-all to me.

[liberation]

54. He broke a Swedish law pertaining to the use of condoms during consensual intercourse...

... technically he is wanted by Sweden not the US.

So there you have it, the authoritarian contingent in this site are salivating because their number 1 enemy was busted for fucking without a condom. Amazingly a lot of the people making all sorts of justifications for these types of means, will blow a fuse when the nanny state does not allow McDonald's to target kids for their hormone infested beef patties from mutated cows with a side of fecal matter. It's amazing the logical dissonance that brains, turned to mush after decades of exposure to marketing, can generate.

Oh, well...

[Hissyspit]

64. We don't even know that that happened.

[liberation]

82. Amazing, isn't it?

Sort of proves wikileaks' point regarding transparency.

It is astounding to me the means that can and will be justified by those who sheepishly subscribe to such an ill defined end such as "national security."

Orwell, Huxley and co were so correct, and this is all so predictable. It is just sad...

[molly77]

155. Well, anyway , we live in a totalitarian state.

We have been told repeatedly by many experts that if you have nothing to hide, you should not be concerned when your emails are read , your telephone is tapped, illegal search and seizure..and now looking in panties if you want to travel by air. Hey, is there something in those panties you are trying to hide? Better have a grope.

Some people are mighty thin skinned when the shoe is on the other foot. Makes me wonder if my govt. has something to hide.I think WE have some huge karma going on in the good old USA.And if anything , Julian Assange is exposing the emperor has no clothes.

[krabigirl]

132. Yep.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

195. It's the Law of

The United States Uber Alles.

And the other law of "You are either with us, or agin us."

This nation now stands for perpetual war, and for total domination by the Corporations.

In other words, this nation is a fascist state. (Definition of fascism is that of the corporations controlling the government, and being given the ultimate power.)

There are simply so few people allowed by our nation to be elected, even in foreign nations, unless they are willing to do the bidding of our Big Corporations and our Military Industrial Complex. A good book to read about this concept, and one that also includes a bit of history of the USA's stance regarding Australian "free elections" is "The Falcon and the Snowman," which takes place during late seventies, early eighties. This is a true tale, relating to two young men who sell secrets to Russia via the Mexican Embassy. And how their actions are viewed by our mainstream politicians.

I have often thought that one of the reasons we did not have a major nuclear war against The Soviet Union during that era was due to how the secrets offered the Russians allowed them to be able to keep abreast of what our war machinery was up to, and as a result secure the peace. But of course, the "Falcon" member of the espionage team was sentenced to a long time in prison. He did escape, according to the last few paragraphs in the book, and he remains at large, if I remember correctly.

[No Elephants]

220. The U.S. can prosecute non-citizens for violating our laws, unless the law limits

its application to U.S. citizens.

The real issues are (a) whether he broke any of our laws; and (2) whether the law(s) he broke, if any, are unconstitutional. And, if we pass those, then, we get to the issue whether we can get get our hands on him to punish him, whether by extradition treaty or otherwise.

[hack89]

262. How can Spanish courts investigate and charge US citizens

for crimes not committed in Spain, like many here think they can?

[truedelphi]

266. Sort of like the stupidity about how Americans can no longer

Be out on their own beaches, due to the need for BP to keep things secret.

Stupid like that, right?

It just might be a trend.

[hugo_from_TN]

270. Espionage against the US is illegal and you don't have to be a citizen to be prosecuted.

Think "Soviet spy" if you need a clue.

[Nihil]

271. "Espionage"

:rofl:

Funny how it is the pro-corporatists, the pro-DLC and the pro-American-exceptionalism
teams are working so hard to blacken Assange's name around here. Gosh, you might even
start to think that they had something to hide ...

:patriot: :rofl:

[bhikkhu]

21. That does really stink...

though its no surprise given the character of Australian government in recent years.

It also does go to highlight that the PTB are capable of uniting solidly behind anyone who threatens or inconveniences them. "One for all and all for one", as long as your in the club. If you're not in the club, stay out of the way or you're squashed like a bug.

[axollot]

29. Yes and Australia just had it's own supposedly 'left' leaning government

brought back in after the coward Howard was pushed all the way out of Canberra. This feels to many Aussies like Obama doing the Repubs bidding. Sucks.

Cheers
Sandy

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Yr right. That's exactly what it feels like....

This feels to many Aussies like Obama doing the Repubs bidding.

I'm now understanding the sense of betrayal I've seen at DU when it comes to Obama's performance...

[axollot]

76. Imagine how I feel. *smh* =(

[LiberalLovinLug]

251. Left is the new Right all over the world :(

It seems that the REAL holders of power, the top families and the multinationals they own, have won.

All over the world you see glimmers of hope when a left/center party gets elected amid the dominance of right wing governments. Then soon after (ie. Obama) it seems they take a look at the monstrous stack of cards heaped against them and realize they must capitulate on almost every principle, or be destroyed by a combination of corporate controlled media + a threat to withhold investments in the economy along with donating massively to opposition parties and smear campaigns.

[axollot]

269. Isnt that the sad and scary truth. I refuse to just roll over tho!! n/t

[ProudDad]

252. There's NOTHING more dangerous

to liberty and Progressiveness...

than a supposedly "left leaning" Government in any corporate state...

Out of basic insecurity, they try harder...

[stevenleser]

25. There are probably reciprocal agreements regarding lawbreaking and release of state secrets

I am sure that if you do something similar with German, Australian, French or UK state secrets or private diplomatic cables, the US government will happily hand you over to the law enforcement agencies of those countries.

[northernlights]

28. except that he hasn't broken any laws

either here or in Australia.

And Australia from very early on started searching for laws they could accuse him of breaking.

[No Elephants]

226. Respectfully, do you know every U.S. and Australian law? If not, on what are you basing your claim?

I appreciate what Assange has done, but I think he may very well have violated U.S. laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Which is why he isn't in AU.

Treaty of Extradition between the United States of America and Australia
Extradition

TIAS 8234

27 U.S.T. 957; 1974 U.S.T. LEXIS 130

May 14, 1974, Date-Signed

May 8, 1976, Date-In-Force

STATUS:

<*1> Treaty signed at Washington May 14, 1974;
Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America December 1, 1975;
Ratified by the President of the United States of America December 16, 1975;

Ratified by Australia December 22, 1975;
Ratifications exchanged at Canberra April 8, 1976;

Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America May 5, 1976;
Entered into force May 8, 1976.

TREATY ON EXTRADITION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AUSTRALIA

TEXT:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

CONSIDERING THAT:

The Treaty on Extradition between the United States of America and Australia was signed at Washington on
May 14, 1974, the original of which Treaty is hereto annexed;

The Senate of the United States of America by its resolution of December 1, 1975, two-thirds of the Senators
present concurring therein, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Treaty;

The Treaty was ratified by the President of the United States of America on December 16, 1975, in pursuance
of the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been duly ratified on the part of Australia;

The respective instruments of ratification were exchanged at Canberra on April <*2> 8, 1976;

It is provided in Article XXI of the Treaty that the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days after the exchange
of instruments of ratification;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States of America, proclaim and make public the
Treaty, to the end that it shall be observed and fulfilled with good faith on and after May 8, 1976, by the
United States of America and by the citizens of the United States of America and all other persons subject to
the jurisdiction thereof.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed this proclamation and caused the Seal of the United States of
America to be affixed.

DONE at the city of Washington this fifth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred
seventy-six and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundredth.

The United States of America and Australia, desiring to make more effective the cooperation of the two
countries for the reciprocal extradition of offenders, agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

Each Contracting Party agrees, under the conditions and circumstances established by this Treaty,
reciprocally to deliver up persons found in its territory who have been charged with or convicted <*3> of any
of the offenses mentioned in Article II of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other Contracting
Party, or outside that territory under the conditions specified in Article IV of this Treaty.

ARTICLE II

(1) Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the following offenses
provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year or by death:

1. Murder or willful murder; assault with intent to commit murder.

2. Manslaughter.

3. Aggravated or willful wounding or injuring; assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

4. Unlawful throwing or application of any corrosive or injurious substances upon the person of
another.

5. Rape; indecent assault, including unlawful sexual acts with or upon children.

6. Illegal abortion.

7. Procuring, or trafficking in, women or young persons for immoral purposes; living on the earnings
of prostitution.

8. Abandoning or exposing a child when the life of that child is or is likely to be injured or
endangered.

9. Bigamy.

10. Kidnapping; child stealing; abduction; false imprisonment.

11. Robbery.

12. Burglary; housebreaking or any similar <*4> offense.

13. Larceny.

14. Embezzlement.

15. Obtaining any property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or other form of
deception.

16. An offense against the law relating to bribery.

17. Extortion.

18. Receiving any property, money or valuable securities knowing the same to have been
unlawfully obtained.

19. Fraud by an agent, bailee, banker, factor or trustee, by a director or officer of a company or
by a promoter of a company, whether existing or not.

20. An offense relating to counterfeiting or forgery.

21. Perjury; subornation of perjury; conspiring to defeat the course of justice.

22. Arson.

23. An act done with the intention of endangering the safety of any person traveling upon a
railway or in any aircraft or vessel or other means of transportation.

24. Any seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence, or by
any other form of intimidation, of an aircraft.

25. Piracy, by statute or by law of nations; revolt on board a vessel against the authority of the
master of the vessel.

26. Malicious injury to property.

27. An offense against the bankruptcy laws.

28. An offense against the laws relating to narcotics, dangerous drugs or <*5> psychotropic
substances.
29. Dealing in slaves.

(2) Extradition shall also be granted for any other offenses that are made extraditable under the extradition
laws of Australia and which are felonies under the laws of the United States of America.

(3) Extradition shall also be granted for any offense against a federal law of the United States of America of
which one of the above-mentioned offenses is a substantial element, even if transporting or transportation or
the use of the mails or of interstate facilities is also an element of the specific offense.

(4) Extradition shall also be granted for aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, being an
accessory before or after the fact to, or attempting or conspiring to commit, any of the offenses mentioned in
the preceding paragraphs of this Article.

(5) If extradition is requested for any offense mentioned in a preceding paragraph of this Article and that
offense is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year
or by death, that offense shall be extraditable under the provisions of this Treaty whether or not the laws of
both Contracting Parties would place that <*6> offense within the same category of offenses made
extraditable by that preceding paragraph of this Article and whether or not the laws of the requested State
denominate the offense by the same terminology.

ARTICLE III

(1) For the purposes of this Treaty, the territory of a Contracting Party means all the territory under the
jurisdiction of that Contracting Party, including airspace and territorial waters, and also includes -

(a) any vessel registered in any territory under the jurisdiction of that Contracting Party; and

(b) any aircraft registered in any such territory provided that the aircraft is in flight when the
relevant offense is committed.

(2) For the purposes of this Treaty -

(a) the territory under the jurisdiction of a Contracting Party includes the Territories for the
international relations of which that Contracting Party is responsible;

(b) an aircraft shall be considered in flight from the moment when the power is applied for the
purpose of take-off until the moment when the landing run ends.

ARTICLE IV

When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the
requesting State -

(a) if the United States of America <*7> is the requested State – the executive authority of the
United States of America; or

(b) if Australia is the requested State – the

Attorney-General of Australia,

shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over
such an offense committed in similar circumstances.

ARTICLE V

(1) Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own nationals under this Treaty but the
executive authority of each Contracting Party shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it
considers that it is proper to do so.

(2) For the purposes of this Article -

(a) a reference to the executive authority of a Contracting Party shall, in the case of Australia,
be construed as a reference to the Attorney-General of Australia;

(b) Australian protected persons shall be deemed to be nationals of Australia; and

(c) the nationality of a person shall be determined to be that which he held at the time when he
was charged with the offense for which his extradition is requested.

ARTICLE VI

Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence is found sufficient, according to the laws in the territory
where the person whose <*8> extradition is requested is found, either to justify his trial or committal for trial
if the offense with which he is charged or its equivalent had been committed in that territory or to prove that
he is the identical person convicted by the courts of the requesting State.

ARTICLE VII

(1) Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

(a) when the person whose extradition is requested is being proceeded against, has been tried
and discharged or punished, or has been pardoned, in the territory of the requested State for the
offense for which his extradition is requested;

(b) when the prosecution for the offense has become barred by lapse of time according to the
laws of the requesting State; or

(c) when the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the
person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the
purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of a political character.

(2) If any question arises whether a case comes within the provisions of subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1) of
this Article, the requested State shall decide that question.

ARTICLE VIII

If, under <*9> the law of the requesting State, an offense for which the extradition of a person is requested,
or any other offense for which he may be detained or tried under paragraph (1) of Article XIV, is subject to a
penalty of death but the law of the requested State does not provide for such a penalty in a similar case, the
requested State may recommend to the requesting State that any punishment imposed for any of those
offenses be a less severe punishment.

ARTICLE IX

When the person whose extradition is requested is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the
territory of the requested State for an offense other than that for which extradition has been requested, his
surrender may be deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings and the full execution of any punishment
that may be or may have been imposed on him.

ARTICLE X

The determination that extradition based upon the request therefor should or should not be granted shall be
made in accordance with the law of the requested State and the person whose extradition is sought shall
have the right to use such remedies and recourses as are provided by that law.

ARTICLE XI

(1) The request for extradition shall be made through <*10> the diplomatic channel.

(2) The request shall be accompanied by a description of the person sought, a statement of the facts of the
case, the text of the applicable laws of the requesting State including the law defining the offense, the law
prescribing the punishment for the offense and the law relating to the limitation of the legal proceedings.

(3) When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a
warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting State and by such evidence as,
according to the laws of the requested State, would justify his trial or committal for trial if the offense had
been committed there, including evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of
arrest refers.

(4) When the request relates to a person already convicted, it must be accompanied by the judgment of
conviction and sentence, if any, passed upon him in the territory of the requesting State, by a statement, if
applicable, showing how much of the sentence has not been served and by evidence proving that the person
requested is the person to whom the judgment refers.

(5) The warrant of arrest and <*11> deposition or other evidence, given under oath or affirmed, and the
judicial documents establishing the existence of the conviction, or certified copies of those documents, shall
be admitted in evidence in the examination of the request for extradition when -

(a) in the case of a request by Australia – those documents or certified copies bear the
signature, or are accompanied by the attestation, of a judge, magistrate or officer of Australia or
are authenticated by the official seal of the Attorney-General and, in any case, are certified by
the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States of America in Australia; or

(b) in the case of a request by the United States of America – the warrant, if any, bears an
original signature, or the other documents are certified, by a judge, magistrate or officer of the
United States of America and, in any case, are authenticated by the oath of a witness or sealed
with the official seal of the Department of State on behalf of the Secretary of State or of the
Department of Justice on behalf of the Attorney General.

ARTICLE XII

(1) In case of urgency a Contracting Party may apply for the provisional arrest of the person sought <*12>
pending the presentation of the request for extradition through the diplomatic channel.

(2) The application shall contain a description of the person sought, an indication of intention to request the
extradition of the person sought and a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or a judgment of
conviction against that person, and such further information, if any, as would be necessary to justify the issue
of a warrant of arrest had the offense been committed, or the person sought been convicted, in the territory
of the requested State.

(3) On receipt of such an application the requested State shall take the necessary steps to secure the arrest
of the person claimed.

(4) A person arrested upon such an application shall be set at liberty upon the expiration of forty-five days
from the date of his arrest if a request for his extradition accompanied by the documents specified in Article XI
has not been received.

(5) Paragraph (4) of this Article shall not prevent the institution of proceedings with a view to extraditing the
person sought if the request is subsequently received.

ARTICLE XIII

(1) If the requested State requires additional evidence or information to enable it to <*13> decide on the
request for extradition, that State may request that such evidence or information be furnished within such
period as it specifies.

(2) If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is
not sufficient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested
State, he shall be discharged from custody.

(3) The discharge of a person from custody under paragraph (2) of this Article shall not bar the requesting
State from submitting another request in respect of the same offense.

ARTICLE XIV

(1) A person extradited under this Treaty may be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting
State for any offense mentioned in Article II for which the person could be convicted upon proof of the facts
upon which the request for extradition was based.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this Article, a person extradited under this Treaty shall not be
detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting State for an offense other than that for which
extradition has been granted, or be extradited by that State to a third State, unless -

(a) he has left the <*14> territory of the requesting State after his extradition and has
voluntarily returned to it;

(b) he has not left the territory of the requesting State within thirty days after being free to do
so; or

(c) the offense concerned is one for which the requested State has consented to his detention,
trial or punishment or to his extradition to a third State and is an offense mentioned in Article II.

(3) A request for the consent of the requested State under subparagraph (c) of paragraph (2) of this Article
shall be accompanied by such information and documents as are requested by that State.

(4) This Article does not apply to offenses committed after the extradition.

ARTICLE XV

A requested State, upon receiving two or more requests for the extradition of the same person either for the
same offense, or for different offenses, shall determine to which of the requesting States it will extradite the
person sought, taking into consideration the circumstances and particularly the possibility of a later extradition
between the requesting States, the seriousness of each offense, the place where the offense was committed,
the nationality and residence of the person sought, the dates upon which <*15> the requests were received
and the provisions of any extradition agreements between the requested State and the other requesting State
or States.

ARTICLE XVI

(1) The requested State shall promptly communicate to the requesting State through the diplomatic channel
the decision on the request for extradition.

(2) Where extradition of a person for an offense is granted, the person shall be conveyed by the appropriate
authorities of the requested State to a port or airport in the territory of that State agreed between that
State and the requesting State.

(3) If a warrant or order for the extradition of a person sought has been issued by the competent authority
and he is not removed from the territory of the requested State within such time as is prescribed by the laws
of that State, he may be set at liberty, and the requested State may subsequently refuse to extradite that
person for the same offense.

(4) Australia is not required to extradite a person before the expiration of fifteen days after the date on
which he has been held judicially to be liable to extradition, or, if proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus have
been brought, before the expiration of fifteen days after the final <*16> decision of the competent court has
been given.

ARTICLE XVII

(1) To the extent permitted under the law of the requested State and subject to the rights of third parties,
which shall be duly respected, all articles found in the requested State that have been acquired as a result of
the offense or may be required as evidence shall, if the requesting State so requests, be surrendered if
extradition is granted.

(2) Subject to the qualifications of paragraph (1) of this Article, the above-mentioned articles shall, if the
requested State so requests, be surrendered to the requesting State even if the extradition, having been
agreed to, cannot be carried out owing to the death or escape of the person sought.

(3) Where the law of the requested State or the rights of third parties so require, any articles so surrendered
shall be returned to the requested State free of charge if that State so requests.

ARTICLE XVIII

(1) Expenses related to the transportation of the person sought to the requesting State shall be paid by the
requesting State.

(2) The requested State shall make all necessary arrangements for, and meet the cost of, the representation
of the requesting State in any proceedings arising <*17> out of a request for extradition.

(3) No pecuniary claim, arising out of the arrest, detention, examination and surrender of persons sought
under the terms of this Treaty, shall be made by the requested State against the requesting State.

ARTICLE XIX

(1) The right to transport through the territory of one of the Contracting Parties a person surrendered to the
other Contracting Party by a third State shall be granted on request made through the diplomatic channel.

(2) In the case of a national of the requested State, the request shall establish that conditions are present
which would warrant extradition of the person by the State of transit.

(3) The request may be refused if reasons of public order are opposed to the transit.

(4) Permission for the transit of a person surrendered shall include authorization for accompanying officials to
hold that person in custody or request and obtain assistance from authorities in the State of transit in
maintaining custody.

(5) The Party to which the person has been extradited shall reimburse the Party through whose territory such
person is transported for any expenses incurred by the latter in connection with such transportation.

ARTICLE XX

This <*18> Treaty applies to offenses mentioned in Article II committed before, on or after the date on which
this Treaty enters into force, provided that no extradition shall be granted for an offense committed before
that date which was not an offense under the laws of both Contracting Parties at the time of its commission.

ARTICLE XXI

(1) This Treaty is subject to ratification and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in Canberra as
soon as possible.

(2) This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days after the exchange of instruments of ratification. (May 8, 1976.)

(3) This Treaty may be terminated by either Contracting Party giving notice of termination to the other
Contracting Party at any time and the termination shall be effective six months after the date of receipt of
such notice.

(4) This Treaty shall terminate and replace, as between the Contracting Parties to the present Treaty, the
Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Great Britain of December 22, 1931, n2 as made
applicable to Australia. <*19>

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -Footnotes- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

n2 TS 849; 47 Stat. 2122.

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -End Footnotes- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have
signed this Treaty.

DONE at Washington this fourteenth day of May, 1974.

SIGNATORIES:



GERALD R. FORD

By the President:

JOSEPH JOHN SISCO

Acting Secretary of State

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

FOR AUSTRALIA:

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Assange hasn't broken any US laws, though

on edit: Just for the record, Australia refuses to extradite anyone to the US who could face the death penalty for what they've been charged with, so that treaty doesn't mean that there's any sort of universal application of it when it comes to extraditions...

[stevenleser]

65. Yes he has. The various National Security Acts make unauthorized release of classified information

a felony.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. No, he hasn't. Otherwise the US would be going after The Guardian as well.....

...and that's apart from the bleeding obvious fact that the US govt hasn't issued an arrest warrant...

[AtheistCrusader]

156. Hasn't issued a warrant yet.

And the press usually has immunity to print classified documents that the government has lost control of. Assange may not be recognized as a 'press' organization.

Chances are good he'll walk, but probably not till we've tortured him real good to find out who the leaker was.

[No Elephants]

227. "press usually has immunity to print classified documents that the government has lost control of"

In New York Times v. U.S. there were many opinions. However, a majority of the Justices agreed that the U.S. could punish the NYT after publication, even if the U.S. could not, undr the First Amendment prevent publication. I don't think the bit about after publication is necessarily a square holding. However, I also don't think this SCOTUS is more liberal than the 1971 SCOTUS. And, in 1971, we were not yet keeping fear about Terra alive. And, we did not yet have a classified info act.

[No Elephants]

225. For starters, possibly the Espionage Act and/or 18 U.S.C Section 798.

Holder says he is investigating criminal law and espionage laws.

Absence of a warrant so far is not surprising. The issues are numerous and not a lot of law at SCOTUS level exists.. No one wants a misstep in a case whose profile is this high. For just one thing, Ellsberg got off scot free on prosecutorial misconduct, and he was the one who actually stole the info.

[sabrina 1]

240. That does not relate to the press and especially foreign press.

He is not a citizen of this country. He received the information from a whistle-blower. What statute has he violated? I'm sure the U.S. government is searching for one but so far, after months of these releases they apparently have not been able to legally charge him. If they do, they would have to go after The Guardian, Der Spiegel, the NYT and any other news agency that publishes this material. We do have a 1st Amendment in this country not to mention that we do not have jurisdiction over the press in other countries.

[No Elephants]

223. We have criminal laws about receiving stolen property and we have laws about classified info

[EFerrari]

59. What lawbreaking?

[stevenleser]

67. See my #65 above. If you do the same thing he did to the UK, France, etc., you will

be handed over and go to prison in one of those countries.

[EFerrari]

69. But he didn't. If he decapitated someone, he'd go to prision.

But he didn't.

What is your point?

[stevenleser]

71. What do you mean what is my point? What he did is a felony according to the National Security Acts

You cannot release classified information without proper authorization. It doesnt matter how you got it. If you try, you will be prosecuted. It is against the law, and you will go to jail.

[EFerrari]

73. Wrong. He published material someone else released.

Go read anyone on this -- besides Ensign or Lieberman. Horton, Turley, the ACLU. Why isn't there a warrant?

It is not against the law. And even were it, why are there no warrants for the New York Times and the Guardian, etc. They. like Wikileaks, were also middle men.

This is bullshit and it's gobsmacking that people are defending it.

[stevenleser]

75. OK, watch what happens. n/t

[laughingliberal]

99. I don't think anyone here will be shocked to find governments will railroad people they find...

inconvenient.

[Hissyspit]

101. Various legal authorities in the U.S. And around the world have questioned

the legal case against Asssange and the unlikelihood that any prosecution of him - a non-U.S. citizen - would be valid. At the best it is not ANYWHERE near as cut and dried as you make it out to be. And "what happens" doesn't necessarily validate the legality or your point in your original post.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. I don't think they care if they can convict him.

Probably just want to get him alone in a room without his lawyer, a stretcher, some straps, some water and a towel.

[No Elephants]

228. Please see Replies 225 and 227

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvus.html (all opinions in NYT v. U.S.)

I appreciate Assange greatly, but he probably did violate our laws and, IMO, this SCOTUS will not say any of them are unconstitutional. I wish it were otherwise and I hope to be wrong about, at a minimum, the Supremes.

[liberation]

79. I did not know that having unprotected consensual sex is against National Security Acts...

... because that is the crime Mr. Assange is being charged with... in SWEDEN.

I better head to the pharmacy now, so tonight the missus and I can be in full compliance of your National Security Acts, lord knows the last thing I would like is for you to feel slightly less secure with my climaxing.

[truedelphi]

196. He's not a citizen of the USA, and our laws do not apply.

Let's take a parallel situation: if I release secrets held as sacred by the government in Beijing, should I go to China, I may be arrested for having caused them some trouble and broken their laws. But if I was responsible for that release of secret cables from China, I seriously doubt that my government would be willing to turn me over to them.

[No Elephants]

234. Our laws do apply to non-citizens, unless they have diplomatic immunity.

"But if I was responsible for that release of secret cables from China, I seriously doubt that my government would be willing to turn me over to them."



Extradition is a different issue from whether laws apply in the first place. And, if extradition treaties exist, why do you doubt you'd be turned over?

[axollot]

84. He didnt remove the info off the computer and then hand it over. n/t

[Better Believe It]

87. Are they are repressive and undemocratic? Well, you do have two right-wing leaders running things

And you think that is good?

[bemildred]

43. LOL. I see your press is not much better than ours.

AS THE net closes around WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the notorious whistleblower has accused Prime Minister Julia Gillard of betraying him as an Australian citizen in her eagerness to help the United States attack him and his organisation.

Ahead of his imminent arrest - over an alleged sexual assault in Sweden - Mr Assange yesterday broke cover to lash out at the Gillard government, comparing his treatment to that of former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

''I am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal,'' Mr Assange wrote in a live question-and-answer session on the website of UK newspaper The Guardian.

''However … the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return impossible but they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people.''

---

This seems to be an inaccurate rehash of the interview posted around here yesterday.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. The Age is one of the better ones...

That's got nothing on the local news the other night where the newsreader solemnly informed watchers that Wikileaks was about to be listed as a terrorist organisation...

[Raster]

58. Wonderful visual example of the deliberate manipulation of so-called "news".

:kick:

[Hissyspit]

62. Yup.

[daleo]

103. Nice post. n/t

[bemildred]

115. Hey.

:hi:

[populistdriven]

105. The Australian press is the greatest in the world

Assange is an Australian reporter

[bemildred]

113. LOL.

"Keep hope alive."
:thumbsup:

[kgnu_fan]

121. John Pilger is another great Australian journalist. Fearless and brave.

[EFerrari]

138. Another Australian censored in the United States. n/t

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

144. There are often quite a few holes in Madsen's research.

But it does seem odd that a lady who works for the Ford Foundation is always portrayed in our press as someone who lived on food stamps, and brought her child up with the right convictions about everything, despite the family being quite friendly with the Geithners.

And of course, Timmy Geithner is far more a friend of Goldman Sachs and AIG, than that of anyone on food stamps, and funny too how he suddenly becomes the Secretary of the Treasury at the exact point in time that the "Too Big To Fail" crowd needs him there.

[clixtox]

173. Truly hilarious!

There are so many similar coincidences that boggle the mind! By the way, thanks for not immediately considering me a nutty conspiracy freak because I brought up this possibility.

I am interested in hearing more about the holes you alluded to in the Madsen research. Of course since much of Obomba's background and history has been suppressed it is nearly impossible to know for sure where the truth lies anymore. One has to wonder why all of this censoring was so necessary...

I do believe that there is a lot of truth in these allegations only because they answer so many of the obvious questions about why Obomba has turned out to be a willing participant in maintaining the crimes and anti-democratic policies of his predecessors, let alone allowing obvious criminality of the recent past to go unexamined, etc.

[truedelphi]

194. It's not a conspiracy if the "Official Version of the Event" is more ludicrous than

The laws of physical reality would allow for. So when someone calls me or anyone else a "Conspiracy, tin foil hat" believer, I am not offended. And I don't pin that label on others until I have heard them out.

I first found Madsen flawed in areas of subject matter relating to the Stolen Election of 2004.

He had an explanation, regarding the money surrounding the Stolen Election. But he portrayed the money responsible for the Stolen Election as being so intertwined with so many events, all of which could be traced back to the same bank account at the same point in time, and overseen by the same Bush family member.

Rather like, if someone wrote a history of the world, and the author of that treatise traced Columbus' voyage to the New World back, back back across time to the same bank account that helped the the people around Pontius Pilate purchase the cross upon which Jesus was crucified.

I mean, I do believe in following the money, but surely the same singular bank account cannot be held responsible for every single modern day political travesty we have witnessed since Iran Contra.

However regarding Obama and speculation about his being an asset of the CIA, you might find this video and the speculations that John Pilger discusses, to be of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfVULT8vdUk

I have no idea how much truth it contains, but it is entertaining.

[No Elephants]

247. .....

"During the 2008 Presidential election, Geithner was one of three people tipped to be nominated for Treasury Secretary regardless of whether John McCain or Barack Obama won.<23>"

23. ^ Raum, Tom (18 October 2008). "Next treasury boss will feel power - and stress". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-10-17-2159631534_x.htm. Retrieved November 25, 2010.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner

Make of that what you will.

[No Elephants]

229. Who said his mother was ditsy? Didn't she have a doctoral degree?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elehhhhna]

129. K&R AND LOVE the pic of Nintjie!

[Odin2005]

137. More likely the PTB threatened her.

[Casandra]

145. A different perspective

In order to have something to 'tattle' about, you need the 'doers' to make it news worthy. Have we all lost sight of that? If everything was being done above board, honestly and openly and 'right', what would there be to tattle over? Point the fingers at the ones who created this debacle and stop pointing at the one who reports the wrong doing...<what was done> Far as I'm concerned he deserves to be given a Medal of Honor for having the courage to speak the truth. Not many out there who have that kind of courage... Flame away...

[davidinalameda]

151. the phrase drama queen comes to mind

:shrug:

[tavalon]

165. The phrase savvy survivor comes to my mind

The fact that he is still breathing given the hornets nest he has stirred up can be attributed mostly to staying in the limelight. That I'm not surprised that my government would murder him if they thought they could get away with it is really sad.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. Neither Tav nor Assange are drama queens...

[tavalon]

177. But we are both whistleblowers

I can't say as I see being compared to Assange as a bad thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

178. No, I don't see it as a bad thing either....

He's a really intelligent guy, so I wouldn't see it as anything but a compliment :)

[davidinalameda]

184. whistleblowers are one thing

illegally obtaining classified information for the the sole purpose of playing gotcha on a world-wild level and then being shocked when those governments you choose to embarrass won't protect you from other governments is a whole different thing

reminds me of a little boy who tries to hide behind his mother's skirt after pissing off his sibling

tries to hide but it won't work

[No Elephants]

235. All claims that have been responded to on this thread. Read the responses to all of OregonBlue's

posts.

[Violet_Crumble]

170. Maybe to you, but not to people who care about the rights of Australian citizens...

FOC

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turborama]

158. Sydney Morning Herald have put it a different way: "Australia has abandoned me"

Australia has abandoned me

Steven Swinford and Danny Kemp
December 5, 2010

WHISTLEBLOWING website founder Julian Assange has broken cover to accuse the Australian government of abandoning him to attacks by the US government.

From a location in England the Queensland-born Mr Assange questioned what it meant to be an Australian citizen. As the WikiLeaks chief waited for his likely arrest so British authorities could extradite him to Sweden over allegations of rape and sexual molestation - which he denies - he said he missed his country ''a great deal''.

''However, during the last weeks the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return impossible but that they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people,'' Mr Assange wrote in The Guardian.

''This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.''

It was revealed Mr McClelland has also ordered a taskforce of Australian soldiers, intelligence officers and officials to investigate whether Mr Assange and his organisation had breached any Australian laws. ''The publication of this kind of information is incredibly irresponsible and reprehensible,'' Mr McClelland said.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/australia-has-abandoned-me-20101204-18kpq.html

How's that going to play with the Aussies? I know they believe in giving people a "fair go", but there's also a propensity to dislike "whingers". The question is, who's doing the "whinging" and who deserves a "fair go"?

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

174. Based on the reaction to the way David Hicks was treated...

I'd guess there's going to be a lot of sympathy for Assange, regardless of whether it's felt Wikileaks have done the right thing or not. I listened to Julia Gillard going on yesterday about Assange and it all turned into 'whine, whine, whiney whine whine' and it was clear that this whole thing is similar to what was done to David Hicks where the Australian govt refused to lift a finger to help him...

:hi:

[bemildred]

180. Mr Assange does have a sharp tongue and a good eye for where to aim it.

Typical Australian, eh?

[Violet_Crumble]

185. I think anger makes the aim even better...

I know I'd be pretty cranky about the way the govt's behaved if I were him....

[DeadEyeDyck]

172. Don't know why anyone is shocked by the international

indignation towards Julian Assange. Governments are still "Kings", even though we elect them. The King does nto like his secrets shared with the unwashed masses.

[No Elephants]

237. The issue is whether Australia is too quick to punish its own citizens and

turn them over whenever the U.S. has a whim.

Whether anyone is shocked or not especially significant. However, I've read a lot of posts on this thread. I don't recall seeing any poster seem shocked. disapproval, yes, shock, no.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

179. I can see way he's angry

"Mr McClelland yesterday said Mr Assange might not be welcome back in Australia if he is convicted over the leaks. He confirmed Australia was providing ''every assistance'' to US authorities in their investigation".

It's Julian Assange's county just as much as it's McClellands and Gillard's.

[Violet_Crumble]

186. Exactly n/t

[Beacool]

181. Assange can't have it both ways.

He chose to accept stolen US state secrets and propagate them through his website. Did he expect to get an award for it? He's been lucky so far, let's see what happens to him when he goes after China & Russia.

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

187. He most definately can expect that his own country won't refuse him entry...

Who the hell is the current govt to say he's not welcome back here? I'd rather share this country with him than some snivelling toady who's more interested in sucking up to the US than offering any support to an Australian citizen...

btw, they're not state secrets. It's classified information, and if releasing it into the public domain bothers people so much, why aren't they going after the Grauniad, which well and truly put the 'state secrets' out there for all to view...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

[Hissyspit]

198. He has gotten awards for it.

[treestar]

231. Yeah, I wonder if he'll have the guts for that.

[Pavulon]

182. Hey maybe Roman Polanski has a free room Assange can rent(nt)

[ronnie624]

193. I don't get it. n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

248. There's nothing to get. n/t

[ronnie624]

250. That's for sure. n/t

[MisterP]

189. deposed PM Gough Whitlam apparently let these Aussie journalists get killed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balibo_Five

[Hissyspit]

200. Supreme Court Solicitor Tells PM No Illegality by Assange:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9693372

"…Julian Assange has almost certainly committed no crime under Australian law in relation to his involvement in Wikileaks."

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

230. If he violated Australian laws, tough shit

Really! What a coward! Very entitled. He's a criminal and will have to face up to it!

[No Elephants]

239. Accusing Assange of being a coward is downright ludicrous.

You may be able to argue with a straight face that he should not have made any of the disclosures he's made. But Assange's behavior has not been that of a coward in the least.

It's not as though he's exposed nation after nation anonymously, or that any one of those nations could not have had him executed, officially or unofficially.

I've never done anything nearly as brave. Few have. If you have kudos, but, frankly, I doubt it.

[treestar]

242. If he were brave he would face up to the charges!

And he would not demand his PM allow him to get away with avoiding the charges just because it's his country! He would face up to them!

And he wouldn't hold back what are supposed to be such important documents as insurance to save his ass!

He is a coward of the first order, too hilarious that DU is holding him up as brave! He's done nothing but try to get attention and then whine that the heat is too hot in the kitchen. Well then he should not have stepped into it!

[Violet_Crumble]

255. There are no charges. He hasn't broken any Australian law!

I don't know why you keep on repeating it as though it's true. It's not...

[Igel]

260. It's not an unreasoned assertion.

Two Russian proverbs:

A warrior alone in a field isn't (really) a warrior.


Against a sheep, a fighter;
Against a fighter, a sheep.
(Protiv ovets, boets; protiv boitsa, sam ovtsa.)

He takes bold stands against the mighty and bloviates mightily on the firmness of his stance, but as soon as the mighty act, even if the mighty is a woman alleging sexual improprieties, he runs and whines. He's a funny sort of passive-aggressive, in this case the militant wimp, where he needs to be both the White Knight and the Downtrodden Mass.

To the point of confusing "not welcome" with "banned," and assuming that the role of any government based on laws is the protection of individuals by virtue of citizenship. He must really dislike extradition treaties, Interpol, and the thought of international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of criminals. I wonder how he views the International Criminal Court? Probably likes it.

He's made righteousness and justice his personal bailiwick; pointing out likely contradictions is a trivial task because, ultimately, he's actually consistent. He's just not the silhouette of a person that everybody wants to see.

[Violet_Crumble]

254. He didn't violate any Australian laws.

The cowards are our snivelling Labor govt that's so intent on sucking up to the Americans they sacrifice our right to protection as Australian citizens when it suits them. It's been done before with David Hicks and now it's happening again.

[Zen Democrat]

244. I'm with Alex Baldwin. If Assange is to be the subject of arrest and prosecution,

and with calls for his execution ..... the same must be done for Mr. Cheney and Mr. Armitage. And if you say that Assange is being charged with a sex crime ... I say that Vice President Dick shot a man in the face with no repercussions.

[glinda]

245. That won't happen as the US has "selective" prosecutions.

[saras]

249. Stockholm syndrome

On the one side there's a substantive debate on how valuable the data is to people, and how harmful specific portions might be to specific individuals and policies.

On the other, there's a spectacular display of Stockholm syndrome and internalized oppression.
Not much point in trying to fix THAT with rational discussion or debate.
If you believe he 'has it coming', you've been hit too many times to think clearly anymore.

[ooglymoogly]

256. +1 nt

[inna]

259. the whole thing is SURREAL. OK, so the US is going to hell in a bucket, fast,

but HOW in the world do civilized countries like Australia put up with this bullshit??

:nuke:

[goforit]

272. The fall of the ROMAN EMPIRE....but why the phuck turn fascist.

[Flatulo]

265. For me, the larger issue here is whether governments have the right

to withhold information from their citizenry. Has the SCOTUS ever ruled on this?

To my mind, there should be a reasonable expectation that diplomats can communicate with their own governments with an expectation of privacy. Diplomats are tasked with representing and advancing the interests of their nations. We do have adversaries and competitors across the globe that we have to deal with, and I'm pretty sure those other governments are also trying to get the best possible advantage in dealing with us. To unilaterally show our cards seems stupid to me.

Now, when the US government tells official lies (ie, Iraq WMD) then the press has the right and the obligation to expose those lies.

Where is the line? Should negotiating tactics on trade deals be exposed to the light of day? I think not. But in matters that can lead to war, we need whistle blowers.

I'm not sure where the line should be drawn.

[Forkboy]

268. Rapist...people shot in the back of the head....China!