@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Why shouldn't any government respond to its citizens' legitimate concerns? In democracies our elected governments are supposed to represent us, not ignore our concerns or act like our bosses. Surely?
I didn't say they
shouldn't, I said they
wouldn't. As it stands right now, though, they shouldn't - are they going to publicly respond to every open letter that gets sent to them with a few hundred signatures?
Not publicly responding is not ignoring.
msolga wrote:
The point though, Finn, is that our (Oz) prime minister & our attorney-general have been actively supporting US concerns & interests at the expense of an Australian citizen's rights & (possible) safety.
Julia Gillard has said publicly that Julian Assange has acted "illegally", but can supply no evidence that he's broken any Australian laws when questioned about this allegation by the media.
I believe this is actually what she said:
Quote:"Let's not try and put any glosses on this. It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks if there had not been an illegal act undertaken."
and
Quote:''The foundation stone is an illegal act that certainly breached the laws of the United States of America.''
That's not the same as saying Assange acted illegally.
If he is ever tried in Australia, his lawyers will argue that Gillard's comments prejudiced his defense and poisoned the pool of potential jurors. The hubub they are stirring up about Gillard's comments is intended to do the same thing - influence a potential jury. You are making a mistake if you buy any and every statement his lawyers make. The minute they were hired his defense began.
msolga wrote:
The attorney-general has said that Julian Assange is "not welcome" to return to Australia & has suggested that he might have his passport cancelled & citizenshipship revoked. (He's back-tracked on this since, in response to the not so surprising backlash from the Australian public.)
Revoking his citizenship and stating such an act was under consideration is also not the same thing. Clearly he popped off before giving the subject enough thought and perhaps he deserves to and will suffer a politcal price, but it's a stretch to claim this has violated Assange's rights. What right? The right to not be spoken ill of by the Attorney General?
msolga wrote:
In the meantime, Australian police have been directed to search for any instances where Julian Assange might have breached Australian laws.
We have debated this point previously and you expressed the desire to put an end to it. I've nothing further to add beyond the fact that I still don't believe this is improper.
msolga wrote:
You can well imagine, I think, why many of us have been outraged by this sort of attitude by our elected leaders?
I can imagine all too well why you and others have been outraged, but this doesn't mean I sympathize with your outrage or that I would share it if I was an Australian citizen or Assange was an American.
A key element underlying your outrage is the belief that your government has made statements and taken actions for
the sole purpose of appeasing the United States. That you and other likeminded Australians are not particularly fond of the United States and its policies only makes the perceived appeasement that much worse.
Again, I refer you to my argument that Australia has its own interests when it comes to this matter that are not limited to currying the favor of a powerful ally.
msolga wrote:
This open letter is simply the first opportunity Australians have had to urge our own government to support & defend Julian Assange's rights as an Australian citizen. We shouldn't have to do that. Such support should be automatic.
Another key element underlying your outrage is the belief that not only has Assange done nothing wrong, he has done something very right. He's a hero. I wonder if you would have the same passion regarding your governments actions and inactions if Mr Assange trafficked in illegal weapons.
Assange is not Aung San Suu Kyi. There is a reason why people you may have previously respected or admired believe he has engaged in illegal activity and caused serious harm that extends beyond their desire to preserve a sinister power structure or cover their own backsides.
Your government has no duty to support or defend Assange if he is a criminal. Surely you don't embrace the notion of
An Australian Citizen - Right or Wrong!
They do have a duty to do all they can to ensure that if charged, he receives a fair trial. It's obvious that they do not consider him an oppressed innocent, nor have they made him an Australian cause, but it remains to be seen if they will fail him in the duty they do owe him.
msolga wrote:
But, putting the open letter aside for the minute, the real concern, many political commentators believe, is our government's anxiety about the imminent release (January?) of diplomatic cables from the US embassy in Canberra. And what they will reveal about the Australian/US relationship. What decisions have been made, how & why, that we don't know about? And how do they differ from what our government is telling us?
Information which, of course, we have every right to have access to.
I suspect there will be severe embarrassment, at the very least, (& not just for our present government) when those Wikileaks are published.
That's quite possible, but based on what we've seen so far, I doubt there will be any blockbusters that will shock Australians who pay attention to what is going on in the world and in their country. Have you been shocked by any of the revelations thus far?
I'm by no means an expert in Australian law, but I doubt you and other Australians have a legal right to access any and all documents (whether produced by your government or others) concerning the actions of your government.
This doesn't mean that it is proper for the Australian government to keep all, most, or even many of it's actions secret from its citizens, but I seriously doubt that they do or can. You have a rigorous press and a system involving oppossing parties. It's pretty tough to keep much secret in such an environment...even things that should be kept secret.
The fact that WikiLeaks hasn't really revealed to us anything we didn't already know, surmise or suspect seems to me to be fairly solid evidence that democratic nations (like yours and mine) are not operating under the cover of massive secrecy, anarchists like Assange wish to represent.
In any case, it's clear that irrespective of what happens to Assange between now and then, the new information will be released, and there is nothing the Australian government can do to stop it.
:
