geo4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558

Well we were all thinking it....*weren't we?*

Australia's foreign minister has said the US is to blame for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, not its Australian founder, Julian Assange.

Kevin Rudd said the release raised questions about US security.

Mr Rudd said he did not "give a damn" about criticism of him in the cables.

Mr Assange, arrested in the UK over sex crime allegations in Sweden, has accused the Australian government of "disgraceful pandering" to the US.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard had earlier called Mr Assange's release of the cables "grossly irresponsible".

Over the past two weeks, Wikileaks has released thousands of classified messages from US envoys around the world, from more than 250,000 it has been given.

Washington has called their publication "irresponsible" and an "attack on the international community".

'First class job'

In an interview with Reuters news agency, Mr Rudd said: "Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that."

The Australian government has found itself in the anomalous position of offering consular assistance to Julian Assange after his arrest in London, while at the same time being highly critical of his part in leaking sensitive US diplomatic cables.

Julian Assange has written an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper which is scathing in its criticism of the Gillard government, accusing her of "trying to shoot the messenger".
The case of Julian Assange is already drawing comparisons here with the detention of an Australian, David Hicks, at Guantanamo Bay. Hicks, who trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was found guilty of providing material support for terrorism by an American military tribunal. But he became something of a folk hero for many Australians, because of the widespread feeling that he was treated unfairly by the Americans after being detained at Guantanamo Bay without trial.

Mr Rudd, the former prime minister who was replaced by Julia Gillard in June, added: "I think there are real questions to be asked about the adequacy of [the US] security systems and the level of access that people have had to that material.
"The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorised release."

The White House has ordered US government agencies to tighten their handling of classified documents in the wake of the Wikileaks releases.

Mr Rudd was dismissed in one leaked US cable as a "mistake-prone control freak".
In cables published by the Sydney Morning Herald former US ambassador Robert McCallum said Mr Rudd made "snap announcements without consulting other countries or within the Australian government".

The US was also angered at what it called Mr Rudd's "self-serving and inaccurate leaking" of a phone call with then US President George W Bush in which Mr Rudd was reported as saying: "Stunned to hear Bush say, 'What's the G20?'"

Mr Rudd shrugged off the criticism, saying: "I'm sure much worse has been written about me in the past and probably much worse will be written about me in the future but frankly, mate, I don't care.


Main Leaks So Far
· Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
· Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
· US instructs spying on key UN officials
· China's changing ties with North Korea
· Yemen approved US strikes on militants
· Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
· Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
· Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
· Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak". Extent of corruption in Afghanistan
· Chinese leadership "hacked Google"
· A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
· UK fears over Lockerbie bomber
· Wikileaks cables: Key issues
· Assange v Swedish sex laws

"My job's just to act in Australia's national interest as Australia's foreign minister. I don't, frankly, give a damn about this sort of thing. You just get on with it."

Ms Gillard defended Mr Rudd, saying: "He's bringing [his] expertise to bear for the Australian nation and doing an absolutely first class job."

Mr Assange has been highly critical of the Australian government's stance on the release of the cables.

In an opinion piece in The Australian on Wednesday, Mr Assange accused the Australian government of "disgraceful pandering" to the Americans and of putting the powers of the government fully at the disposal of the US.

In the piece headlined "Don't shoot the messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths", he says: "Democratic societies need a strong media and Wikileaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest."

He adds: "The Australian attorney-general is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US."
Mr Assange has been refused bail by a court in London but has vowed to fight extradition to Sweden.

He denies sexually assaulting two women in Sweden but was remanded in custody pending a hearing next week.

Mr Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, has claimed the charges are "politically motivated".
On a visit to Serbia on Wednesday, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said there had been no contact with US authorities about the possible extradition of Mr Assange from Sweden to the US.

The US has begun a criminal investigation and vowed to punish anyone found responsible for illegal leaks.

No-one has been charged with passing the diplomatic files to Wikileaks, but suspicion has fallen on US Army private Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak.

greentea3

From what I've heard so far from 'wikileaks' I don't personally understand what Mr. Assange has to gain from it (sure I'm gonna get crucified on here by The Guardian crew for saying that!)? Yes, I've heard his lawyer going on about him only being the 'messenger' and having a duty to let people know, but really - for whose benefit and at what price?

Does the public have a right to know these things? if you think we do then just what good will it do us by being given this information? Will it make us into better, caring, decent people just for finding out? I doubt it. Is it going to iradicate world hunger and poverty? I doubt it. So, of what benefit does it really give us by been given these 'leaks'? It's not as if the majority of us didn't think or have suspicions that these kind of things were going on in the world anyway?


It will be interesting to see what happens next, Australia's support or not for him and what the rest of the world's responses/actions will be now.

ExKiwilass

Yes, we do.

Does not knowing the information mean hunger and poverty will be eradicated? Does not knowing the information mean we're all better people? Um, no. It just means that the information is controlled and we can be more easily manipulated because we don't know all the facts.

Maybe you'd be happier in feudal times when some lord type told you how the world was and you could merrily go on your way, cutting peat, but I'm not. I think I have as much right to know as my leaders. They're ultimately accountable to me and everyone else I know. It's difficult to hold people to account if you don't know what they're up to. I don't buy the line that some people have some kind of moral right to know more or are somehow 'better' because of their position.

JonboyE

Excellent comentary here ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-2154109.html

greentea3

no, but my point was - how will this benefit joe public?

So when you do know - what then? will you be able to take on your world leaders to do............ah, yes, to do what exactly? or is it just so you can sit back with a sense of smugness because you know 'information'?

I'm NOT disputing you don't have a right to not know - but answer me - how will YOU or anybody else gain from it?

JonboyE

And to add to what kiwilass says above, yes, absolutely. Governments are elected by the people to serve the people and the people have an unconditional right to know what is being done in their name.

The people can agree that sometimes government can operate more effectively if some things are kept confidential. They temporarily suspend their right to know what the government is up to, but they don't give up that right.

And, when governments lie, or when they seek to manipulate the people who elected them by selective release of information, we should be grateful that people like Assange have the b*ll*cks to publish material that exposes the deceit.

Alan2005

Unfortunately this is what most people want. They like being lied to, stolen from and generally treated as slaves by those with power.

Alan2005

It benefits the public because the actions and motivations of those in power become transparent - this leads to better and more accountable government.

greentea3

Look, I'd say that the vast majority of us know that Governments around the world lie - but what will it do kow that he has published it? It won't stop Governments lying, it won't stop people seeing these lying Governments and then still foolishly vote for them to come into power again and again.
Will it make you start looking for an alternative political party that doesn't lie so you can vote for them?

Are we not the ones that should be saying to ourselves now - well actually we're the twats for voting in these stupid, lying politicians in the first place?

You're sought of saying that you want transparency but yet are happy to vote (assuming of course that you do vote?) and have these people represent you?

Pretty Flowers

I'm glad the leaks happened. I think its important to know that the US, Canada and the UK have covered up many of their questionable activities in the Middle East and among other tin pot regimes.

What I would question though is the need for us to know cabled perceptions of government leaders across the world. I think it's hardly a surprise given the various scandals that have circulated the Wessex's that Prince Andrew is something of a racist, or that Putin runs a corrupt regime, or that Italian politicians are corrupt. I mean none of this should really be much of a surprise to anyone.

What concerns me more is Hilary Clinton's request for DNA, Fingerprints and detailed contact information for UN ambassadors, the US list of important non-military assets and the treatment of the Wikileaks folk since this story and the Afghan/ Iraq leaks came out. I think these leaks illustrate the over-dominance of the US on the world stage and that *surprise* *surprise* that the US acts in no-one's interests but its own. I suspect that the CIA are disappointed that they can't off Assange quietly and are heavily involved in the charges he faces in Sweden...

Pretty Flowers

So you're saying that we should quietly sit by and let governments do exactly what they want to. Why bother to vote at all, why don't we just welcome our feudal overlords and go back to strip farming?

greentea3

But, didn't we think this after the expenses scandle? has this happened?

I think it should by all means make a Government better and make them work for what the people want and make them accountable, by us being able to know but in all honesty, I don't think it happens or will happen.

Alan2005

If it doesn't then eventually the government will be replaced. If the system keeps providing corrupt governments that abuse their power, then it to will eventually be replaced. You'd better hope you aren't around when this happens.

greentea3

Of course not! and what is it with the 'Feudal overlords' theme today? Next I'll be accused of being a benefits cheat who reads the DM, whilst me lord stokes the fire!

Ok, so now we are agreeing in a way about Governments, politicians, organisations being corupt - how many of you now on your moral high horse after Mr. Assanges 'leaks' will actually do anything about it? How will you fight or take on these politicians, Governments and organisations?

I've been pissed with Britains government before and tried to make my voice heard in the form of petitions, emails and letters sent off to them - but it didn't change anything.

JonboyE

Yes I vote, and before casting my vote I want to know if the incumbent has been doing things I disagree with and lied to me about it.

Will the other guys be any better? Well, I think that if they know their duplicity is likely to be exposed they are less likely to be duplicitous.