Assange to sue Prime Minister Gillard for defamation

page: 1
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Assange to sue Prime Minister Gillard for defamation


www.skynews.com.au

Julian Assange has reportedly hired Sydney lawyers to pursue a defamation case against Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Mr Assange has told left-leaning activist group GetUp! that Ms Gillard defamed WikiLeaks when she allegedly told a radio station in 2010 he had broken the law by releasing hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, according to a statement released by the group on Monday.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

"I have hired lawyers in Sydney and they are investigating the different ways in which we can sue Gillard over this statement," Assange told GetUp!


This is just in...5 minutes ago!

It is an interesting turn of events i must say. I'm not sure though, how successful he would be in suing the leader of Australia for a quote she made on a radio station...It will be interesting nonetheless.

What does ATS think? Do you think he has a leg to stand on here?

www.skynews.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 7-10-2012 by daaskapital because: sp



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Wow, I wasn't expecting that.

Yeah I'm not too sure how successful he will be, but I really think it is the point he is trying to make, not the actually suing bit. The fact is, she lied. He hasn't.

Julia, ah Julia.




defamed WikiLeaks when she allegedly told a radio station in 2010 he had broken the law by releasing hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables


My question is, why has he waited all this time? Is it because it is the right time to make a point, to emphasise the effectiveness and truthfulness of WikiLeaks, and he truly believes he has something here?

I think he has a shot. And if not, he would have considered the cost and perhaps consider the media attention valuable enough.
edit on 7-10-2012 by Shypeir because: quote



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I'm not so sure he's going into it expecting a win.

Most frivolous lawsuits are started to garner attention. I suspect no different here. I support it, though. Assange needs to make a public spectacle of the evils in the world before he's sniped out of existence.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Well, it is Assange's game plan to keep the "victim status" alive and divert attention from the fact he's wanted to answer questions for alleged sex crimes. It's laughable that he can continue to hide behind lawyers when there are some serious allegations he should answer to.

Classic diversion tactics.

As to defamation. Um, more opinion that defamation and I bet nothing comes of it.

Regards



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Wait, so he's going to sue her because she told the public and the media that he released the documents/cables?

Seems kind of dumb on his part, I mean if it wasn't her, it would be someone else, plus it's not like she lied. What she said was true...I am a WikiLeaks supporter, but kind of seems like a lost effort...

-SAP-



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
She really did screw up by saying he had broken the law yet when the police looked into it they found he hadn't so she should have retracted it. She is also an ex lawyer so should have known better. Why has he waited so long? My guess is he may have somthing to do with the TV movie "underground" being aired last night.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Broke the law?

Those cables are confidential. Some secret.

So in essence yes you broke the law.

In spirit though I'd say no. He blew the whistle on illegal activities.

I wish they'd pass a law that would hold anyone that blew the whistle on illegal activities innocent.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
She really did screw up by saying he had broken the law yet when the police looked into it they found he hadn't so she should have retracted it. She is also an ex lawyer so should have known better. Why has he waited so long? My guess is he may have somthing to do with the TV movie "underground" being aired last night.


this is my guess too, his mum held a press conference last week, talking about julian and global freedom, and ended it by plugging the underground mini movie thingy.

its all too convenient.

mendax ALWAYS wanted the attention.

while manning dies, assange vies ....for our attention.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
He should give it a go…. In light of “Underground” played on TV here in Australia last night – it is the perfect time & opportunity.

Gillard (and all past Prime Ministers) need to be shown for what they are, spineless US government sucking puppets.

More people after the telemovie and this statement should start to wake up and support him for what he is…. an Australian and world hero!

Mickierocksman



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
By the letter of the law , yes indeed she stuffed up and did a boo boo.

I remember him floating this idea a long time ago.

I don't think he's going for a win, he's just looking to shine the light on Australians politicians and the means by which they are siding with the US no matter what.

I mean, he goes into a lot of detail about the lack of consular assistance he's getting, when Swann says he's in fact getting heaps.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Ironic... Assange ignores the law yet demands it be used against his "political" enemies...

He is such a no talent ass clown....



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital


"I have hired lawyers in Sydney and they are investigating the different ways in which we can sue Gillard over this statement," Assange told GetUp!


This is just in...5 minutes ago!

It is an interesting turn of events i must say. I'm not sure though, how successful he would be in suing the leader of Australia for a quote she made on a radio station...It will be interesting nonetheless.

What does ATS think? Do you think he has a leg to stand on here?

www.skynews.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 7-10-2012 by daaskapital because: sp


This will be interesting, because these things are usually dealt with through silent settlements. I can't see Assange accepting cash to shut up.

The other problem is that the Australian government will try to dig up dirt on whoever agrees to take on the case, to get them to drop it.

I think this could be great, as long as he has a legal team who are not easily intimidated.

It's worth keeping an eye on this one!



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Broke the law?

Those cables are confidential. Some secret.

So in essence yes you broke the law.

In spirit though I'd say no. He blew the whistle on illegal activities.

I wish they'd pass a law that would hold anyone that blew the whistle on illegal activities innocent.


He didn't break the law. Freedom of the press.

If anyone broke any law in this instance it was Bradley Manning, because he signed a document guaranteeing his silence in regard to his military duties.

However, no law can remove the moral judgment of a free Human. We are all, ALWAYS, responsible for our own actions whether we are in the employment of a government while serving in the military, or an employee of Walmart.

Would anyone expect a US marine to execute children? If he were ordered to do that by his superiors, and he knows it is wrong, he has a moral obligation to refuse that order. In the same way, if a person knows of corrupt or criminal activity - even by a military - you are expected to follow your own conscience and moral code.

Orders are meaningless. The individual is ALWAYS responsible for their actions.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
He didn't break the law. Freedom of the press.

Incorrect.. Please read the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling and please pay specific attention to the part where the 2 journalists were charged for printing classified information. Freedom of Press does NOT confer blanket immunity, contrary to populatr belif.



Originally posted by detachedindividual
If anyone broke any law in this instance it was Bradley Manning, because he signed a document guaranteeing his silence in regard to his military duties.

And if wikileaks assisted / solicited manning to go beyond the helicopter footage then they are complicit under US espionage laws, among a few others.



Originally posted by detachedindividual
However, no law can remove the moral judgment of a free Human. We are all, ALWAYS, responsible for our own actions whether we are in the employment of a government while serving in the military, or an employee of Walmart.

This argument is crap.. Assange is not taking responsibility for his actions. If anything he has blatantly ignored the law while demanding others be held to it. He has violated the law and feels he is above it.

The US has laws in place for FEderal employees, including military, that deal specifically with whistle blowing. What you and many others ignore is it stops being whistle blowing the moment items are illegally obtained and leaked that show NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.



Originally posted by detachedindividual
Would anyone expect a US marine to execute children? If he were ordered to do that by his superiors, and he knows it is wrong, he has a moral obligation to refuse that order. In the same way, if a person knows of corrupt or criminal activity - even by a military - you are expected to follow your own conscience and moral code.

Execute? No.

Defend themslves against using deadly force? Absolutely.

Again contrary to populr belief kids with guns and bombs are just as deadly as adults are. Even more so because we dont normally associate children with evil acts.

If we are going down the road of moral respnosibility then should we point out the papers wikileaks released that were unredacted? How is that morally responsible? I thought the goal was to expose corrupt and illegal activity, not to put those who assisted in completely lawful acts at risk simply because Assange has a hard on for the US government, and has stated as much.

How about we explore Assanges morals when he threatened to sue the Guardian because they obtained the entire cache of documents from another source. Assanges argument - the files belong to him and he would lose out financially if they were released?

How about Assange pledging money to Bradley Mannings fund only to fail to come through? He begrudgingly donated the prmised money when he got called out month after month for failing to do so.

How about Assange claiming people should be able to speak their mind, except in the case where the person speaking their mind comments about Assange, then its a law suit.



Originally posted by detachedindividual
Orders are meaningless. The individual is ALWAYS responsible for their actions.

Except when it comes to Assange, who is above the very laws he demands people be held to.

He is a hack, a meglomaniac, a chaleton, a misanthrope....

He is no better than those he accuses...



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I think last nights episode of underground was a little telling.

Did you notice how Assange got into the milnet?

(this is assuming the facts were correct)

Assange didn't need anyone on the inside, he just needed their passwords. And working in IT I can tell you the amount of times someone will tell you their password to logon just out of the subconscious is worrying.

Maybe Bradley Manning didn't give him anything, maybe Assange got a hold of Bradley mannings logons and got into the system himself.

Was Bradley aware? who knows.

but the way the show last night revealed this seems like a deliberate admission of methods.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Would he make the case here or would he "forum shop" the case to Canada?? From what I understand is he will have a better chance there..

Politicians always try to scare journos and the constituency with defamation suits that have no grounds so there would be thousands of lawyers willing to try this. Conservative lawyers especially... Turnbull is a QC? why not ask him to try it--QC's cant refuse cases!



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cartenz
 


Assange is threatening to sue the government, not the other way around.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You mis understood what I was trying to get accross--its that Lawyers hate polititians for trying to silence people with frivolous defamation suits that go no where (happened to me by a polly), so there will be thousands of lawyers wanting to ride this and get their name in the papers...

my original response below was me mis-reading your post:

He's threatening to sue the Prime Minister--not the Government, not Cabinet. Its not totally unheard of for a sitting minister to face litigation, and no doubt it would end up in the HCA

NT Minister Sued for Defamation:
www.abc.net.au...

Peace
edit on 7-10-2012 by cartenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
As to defamation. Um, more opinion that defamation and I bet nothing comes of it.


to meet Defamation it needs to:
* Be made in a public forum
* Be made to an identifiable party
* Be untrue

the only way its not defamation is if the statement is untrue (or for some reason parliamentary privilege gets manipulated), and being that it seems he has broken no Australian laws, hes not a criminal... but Im not a lawyer





new topics
top topics
 
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join