It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Australian Gov. Have Responsibility to Assure Safety for Assange?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
After reading more details of the alleged "rape" concerning Assange, it appears to me to be a vindictive jealousy playing out between two women who found out they were sleeping with the same man. Of course, there could be a payoff of some kind for their testimonies in order to fuel the political plots of extradition, too. The allegations imo, appear very weak. The greatest concern is that this upcoming "questioning" is just an excuse to strategically move Assange around, country to country, until the powers can come up with a way to cement a political charge and get him extradited to a country that has already had politicians call for his death.


According to Stephen Keim, "The Australian Government should do everything in its power, diplomatically and legally, to ensure that there is no risk that the Swedish extradition request would be used as an excuse to have Mr Assange extradited from Sweden to the United States to face charges that have all the hallmarks of being politically inspired." www.abc.net.au...

But apparently, the Australian Prime Minister seems to be washing her hands of any responsibility to this Australian citizen.

Knowing that things with this scenario are "just not right" and the motives are very suspect, should his home country be involved in assuring his safety while abroad? I would like to hear how Australians feel about the responsibility of their government for their citizens in a case like this.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Since David hicks the Australian government has proven it has no interest in protecting its citizens when our own allies are involved.

they SHOULD protect any citizen from undue processes.

regardless of the crime they are accused of.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


Of course they have a responsibility to protect ANY citizen..

There have been MANY cases of Australians charged for crimes comitted abroard where the Government has helped..

The treatment of the Australian Government in the case of Julian Assange is criminal..

Our stupid PM even openly said Assange was guilty of other crimes, crimes which the Australian Federal Police would later say didn't exist and the PM couldn't even name though asked on multiple occassions...

Personally, I'm sick of my Government's "suck up to the US" foreign policy...

Rant over...Carry on....



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by okamitengu
Since David hicks the Australian government has proven it has no interest in protecting its citizens when our own allies are involved.

they SHOULD protect any citizen from undue processes.

regardless of the crime they are accused of.


Hmm, This is a strange thing.

Assange admits to leaking secure documents. BUT is strung up on alleged charges.. which cause him to be detained. Well, I dont know.

Shapelle Corby is also an Australian citizen who has never admitted to anything, yet the Aus govt let the indo govt keep her in prison for 20 years. Even if it was a bag of weed, WFD. It's not attempting to cause disputes between multiple .s of state world wide.

I have no sympathy for assange, but I have to say, I think we should get him back... Then sort him out.

The same as I've always said for Shapelle.

I wonder where the mindsets are when you compare two aussies for two various alleged crimes....




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I wrote to the Prime Minister early December regarding my concerns for Julian Assange and what looked like "trumped up" charges and that I also believed they were pandering to the US Government in this matter and received a response just yesterday. I don't know how to scan and upload the letter so I'm just gonna type it here. I believe that this was a standard letter so am not concerned about my identity being revealed in sharing the contents.

2 February 2011

Dear ...

Thank you for your recent correspondence about Julian Assange and the Wikileaks matter, which falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP. The Attorney-General has asked me to reply on his behalf.

The Australian Government has stated that the large scale distribution of hundreds of thousands of classified United States Government documents is reckless, irresponsible and potentially dangerous. In relation to Mr Assange, he is entitled to the same rights as any other Australian citizen, including consular assistance and the right to return to Australia. The Government will not be engaging a running commentary on the Wikileaks matter or the legal proceedings against Mr Assange.

The Government acknowledges the importance of openness and transparency and the public's right to be informed or raise concerns about government matters. However, withh any right comes responsibility. Being informed of government related matters does not entail an automatic right to every document within the government's possession. Certan information must remain confidential in order for governments to carry out their role of protecting the national interest.

The Australian Government has put in place a range of mechanisms to balance the competing public interests in this area, including strong freedom of information laws, independent accountability and oversight mechanisms and a commitment to strengthn laws to protect whistleblowers. The Government has stated that the debate about the Wikileaks matter is not about censoring free speech or preventing the media from reporting news. The Government's concerns relate to the reckless disregard for the potential damage that could be caused by the unauthorised disclosure of classified material.

Thank you for writing to the Government with your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Annette Willing
Assistant Secretary
Security Law Branch
edit on 5-2-2011 by heffo7 because: typos



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by heffo7
 


Thanks for posting the letter, Heffo7.
Have the words from the Attorney Generals office swayed your opinion in any way?

"The Government has stated that the debate about the Wikileaks matter is not about censoring free speech or preventing the media from reporting news. The Government's concerns relate to the reckless disregard for the potential damage that could be caused by the unauthorised disclosure of classified material. "

Does it appear to you that your government's stance is an attempt to display neutrality?
Or do you see it as silent consent of approval of government corruption?

Has the letter been effective in changing your views in any way?
Do you uphold your governments position on this?
How are the majority of Australians receiving this attitude?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Why are the Australians on this board so silent on this matter?
Is it apathy? Are you waiting to follow the majority rule? Are you all undecided?
Does your government speak on your behalf?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


I think I can sum up my feelings in a nutshell. As soon as I read the letter I just thought "more double speak". Hedging their bets as usual...



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join