Assange to run for Senate (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

I also think it needs to happen after your diplomatic appointment. You can't just retroactively wipe clean the slate because you're an official.

 

[funkshen]

I also think it needs to happen after your diplomatic appointment. You can't just retroactively wipe clean the slate because you're an official.

yes you can, but it gets messy

but it would be irrelevant in assange's case because his activities wouldn't pertain to his diplomatic duties at all (or rather that argument would be pretty hard to pull off in court)

 

[Lentern]

yes you can, but it gets messy

Well that's gay.

 

[Garygaz]

wouldn't it be fun if an elected member of australian parliament was being sought for extradition to the US?

ahah but yeh i would vote for him without blinking. he's just a man but at least he appears to have some sense of greater justice.

 

[Lentern]

ahah but yeh i would vote for him without blinking. he's just a man but at least he appears to have some sense of greater justice.

Justice by casual disregard for the rule of law?

 

[funkshen]

assange hasn't broken any laws brah

 

[Lentern]

assange hasn't broken any laws brah

Wikileaks has but

 

[funkshen]

Wikileaks has but

no it hasn't. first of all that would have to be proven in court and it would be very tough, revolving around first amendment rights, conspiracy to commit espionage, and whether he actually compromised national security. there is also no precedent for punishing the media as disseminators of leaked information. it is also not clear where 'wikileaks' as an organisation is based

he is also an australian citizen which makes jurisdiction difficult. if he was an american citizen he'd probably be toast already

 

[Lentern]

no it hasn't. first of all that would have to be proven in court and it would be very tough, revolving around first amendment rights, conspiracy to commit espionage, and whether he actually compromised national security. there is also no precedent for punishing the media as disseminators of leaked information. it is also not clear where 'wikileaks' as an organisation is based

he is also an australian citizen which makes jurisdiction difficult. if he was an american citizen he'd probably be toast already

I was talking about Australian courts, what do the American courts have to do with it?

 

[Lolsmith]

I was talking about Australian courts, what do the American courts have to do with it?

The thousands of US intelligence files WikiLeaks has released...?

 

[Lentern]

The thousands of US intelligence files WikiLeaks has released...?

Yes but its headed by an Australian citizen, it released Australian confidential diplomatic cables as well, seems pretty open and shut without having to drag the yanks into it.

 

[funkshen]

Yes but its headed by an Australian citizen, it released Australian confidential diplomatic cables as well, seems pretty open and shut without having to drag the yanks into it.

didn't break any australian laws either. first of all, are you sure he released australian diplomatic cables? i thought he dumped US state department cables, with only a few pertaining to australia? in that case it is not an australian issue

secondly, look at the official secrets section of the crimes act. 1) its hard to apply to non-public sector employees/contractors 2) the media/disemminators are protected.

high court in commonwealth vs john fairfax & sons ltd

"it can scarcely be a relevant detriment to the government that publication of material concerning its actions will merely expose it to public discussion and criticism. It is unacceptable in our democratic society that there should be are restraint on the publication of information relating to government when the only vice of that information is that it enables the public to discuss, review and criticize government action ...

If, however, it appears that disclosure will be inimical to the public interest because national security, relations with foreign countries or the ordinary business of government will be prejudiced, disclosure will be restrained. There will be cases in which the conflicting considerations will be finely balanced, where it is difficult to decide whether the public's interest in knowing and in expressing its opinion, outweighs the need to protect confidentiality."

no court would conclude that assange had acted in contravention of that opinion

 

[Lentern]

didn't break any australian laws either. first of all, are you sure he released australian diplomatic cables? i thought he dumped US state department cables, with only a few pertaining to australia? in that case it is not an australian issue

secondly, look at the official secrets section of the crimes act. 1) its hard to apply to non-public sector employees/contractors 2) the media/disemminators are protected.

high court in commonwealth vs john fairfax & sons ltd

"it can scarcely be a relevant detriment to the government that publication of material concerning its actions will merely expose it to public discussion and criticism. It is unacceptable in our democratic society that there should be are restraint on the publication of information relating to government when the only vice of that information is that it enables the public to discuss, review and criticize government action ...

If, however, it appears that disclosure will be inimical to the public interest because national security, relations with foreign countries or the ordinary business of government will be prejudiced, disclosure will be restrained. There will be cases in which the conflicting considerations will be finely balanced, where it is difficult to decide whether the public's interest in knowing and in expressing its opinion, outweighs the need to protect confidentiality."

no court would conclude that assange had acted in contravention of that opinion

Precedent would have little to do with it, this is an emerging area of law and the until such time as some pretty definite statute comes in the high court will be largely making it up as they go along and at the very least Heydon and Hayne are likely to find that spreading around the world the contents of confidential meetings between officials in a gossipy fashion is not likely to serve the national interest and that some penalty can be handed down for it. Probably Gummow too. All of which is irrelevant because what I originally took issue was the idea that this attention seeking media tart who couldn't rise about his own megalomania to diffuse a terse situation is anything but a crusader for justice.

 

[funkshen]

Precedent would have little to do with it, this is an emerging area of law and the until such time as some pretty definite statute comes in the high court will be largely making it up as they go along and at the very least Heydon and Hayne are likely to find that spreading around the world the contents of confidential meetings between officials in a gossipy fashion is not likely to serve the national interest and that some penalty can be handed down for it. Probably Gummow too.

while the precedent isn't overwhelming it is a start, particularly on issues of disseminating leaked confidential information. fist of all, you have to understand that wikileaks was not the leaker (which would be a crime), but the disseminator. all the other australian media venues that released and analysed the cables would also become involved. secondly, the commonwealth would find it almost impossible to demonstrate that the national interest had been prejudiced. indeed, the precedent makes the case that restraints are 'unacceptable' on 'information relating to government' if it 'enables the public to discuss, review and criticize government action', which it certainly has, particularly on australian's involvement in the solomons etc. the question is whether assange or wikileaks acted in contravention of part 7 of the crimes act... they didn't, and unfortunately, the high court doesn't get to make up the crimes act as it goes along

All of which is irrelevant because what I originally took issue was the idea that this attention seeking media tart who couldn't rise about his own megalomania to diffuse a terse situation is anything but a crusader for justice.

i can definitely agree with that. however, given that he's such a worm, and seems to have good organisational skills, he'd make a great politician.

 

[jb_nc]

There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that he is in fact innocent.

he's a gross womaniser who doesn't want to go to sweden to face the music and is using ever lame excuse GEOFFREY QC ROBINSON QC QC SC SC LLB can conjure up over his QC medal at the republican convention

 

[Lentern]

while the precedent isn't overwhelming it is a start, particularly on issues of disseminating leaked confidential information. fist of all, you have to understand that wikileaks was not the leaker (which would be a crime), but the disseminator. all the other australian media venues that released and analysed the cables would also become involved. secondly, the commonwealth would find it almost impossible to demonstrate that the national interest had been prejudiced. indeed, the precedent makes the case that restraints are 'unacceptable' on 'information relating to government' if it 'enables the public to discuss, review and criticize government action', which it certainly has, particularly on australian's involvement in the solomons etc. the question is whether assange or wikileaks acted in contravention of part 7 of the crimes act... they didn't, and unfortunately, the high court doesn't get to make up the crimes act as it goes along

No but they can make up interpretations to fit with new and emerging areas of law. I'll be honest I'd need to read it more carefully but my impression particularly of the Gleeson High Court was when the federal government wanted a conviction the judicial system would generally deliver.

 

[Annihilist]

Assange is an idiot, I don't want him.

Fixed.

 

[Blastus]

Yes but its headed by an Australian citizen, it released Australian confidential diplomatic cables as well, seems pretty open and shut without having to drag the yanks into it.

That is not a crime otherwise he would have been charged with a crime

get your fucking hand off it mate

 

[Lentern]

That is not a crime otherwise he would have been charged with a crime

get your fucking hand off it mate

Anything can be retroactively made a crime when it deals with national security.

 

[Garygaz]

he's a gross womaniser

so unlike a politician