Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Jun 24, 2012

Bob Carr, in full flight from the facts on Assange

Bob Carr appeared in Insiders this morning and discussed the Assange case. His words are worth examining closely. The transcript of his remarks is


Bob Carr appeared in Insiders this morning and discussed the Assange case. His words are worth examining closely. The transcript of his remarks is here.

Carr makes some highly dubious or simply false assertions. One is that “there’s a view that it would be easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than it would be from Sweden.” Some do hold that view – I’ve encountered it on Twitter from angry opponents of Assange. But it’s not a view held by anyone with credibility. The fact is that the temporary surrender mechanism that exists in a treaty between Sweden and United States is the key. The concern in the Assange camp has always been that temporary surrender may allow a rapid transfer of Assange from Sweden to the US with no due process or appeal rights. That can’t happen under the extradition agreements between the US and the UK.

So if Carr is suggesting that it is credible to maintain that Assange may be safer from extradition to the US in Sweden than the UK, he’s simply wrong. If he’d said that there’s a view that temporary surrender comes with the same appeal rights and due process that regular extradition has, then he’d have been on far safer ground, because some credible lawyers do maintain (and I understand it’s the DFAT view as well) that there’s nothing special about temporary surrender compared to ordinary extradition processes. The only problem has been, Assange would be gambling on that issue with his life if he went to Sweden.

Another of Carr’s assertions (and it’s one frequently made by WikiLeaks critics) is that WikiLeaks’ release of American diplomatic material “is not like Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers which revealed huge American deception, huge deception by the American government of the American public. There’s an amorality about what’s been at work here; secrets being released for the sake of being released without inherent justification.”

Well Minister, Daniel Ellsberg would beg to differ. He has specifically rejected that claim

“That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

Elsewhere, Ellsberg has said there are “fundamental similarities” between what Bradley Manning is alleged to have done and what he did. And apparently Carr thinks the diplomatic cables and the Iraq and Afghan warlogs don’t reveal deception by the US government. To take but two of the most egregious examples, that must come as a shock to Americans and Australians who learnt their governments were privately far more pessimistic about the Afghan conflict than they were in public, and to Americans who didn’t realise they were engaged in a military conflict in Yemen that had been conducted entirely in secret.

In any event, we now have a new line from the Gillard government on Wikileaks: it is “amoral” as well as “illegal”. You’ll recall that Julia Gillard called WikiLeaks “illegal” in 2010, only for the Australian Federal Police to directly contradict her mere days later. The Prime Minister, however, has never retracted the claim.

The substance of Carr’s position, however, is the careful insistence that the Americans have not told the Australian government that they have any plans to extradite or otherwise harm Julian Assange and that therefore the only issue is consular support for Assange in his efforts to avoid extradition on sexual assault allegations to Sweden (the irony of course is that Carr was speaking after returning from Libya and his personal mission to try to extract an Australian lawyer from custody). There’s some very careful rhetoric here from the government, designed to give itself maximum cover. “When I’ve raised it,” Carr says, “and I think I have raised it on two occasions with US officials, I’ve received no hint that they’ve got a plan to extradite him to the US.” Carr even disputes the existence of a sealed indictment.

Barrie, there’s not the remotest evidence that that’s the case. There was one allegation that appeared somewhere of something called a sealed indictment. No US figure has confirmed that to us. I suppose you could argue that they wouldn’t confirm it to us til the last moment.

This fiction can be maintained as long as the Obama Administration, or an incoming Romney Administration, does nothing publicly about Assange.

As Assange laid out carefully in his interview with the ABC on Friday morning, there is copious evidence on the public record of a US investigation into Assange. The evidence has emerged during the trial of Bradley Manning, evidence has come from witnesses like David House who have been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury pursuing Assange, evidence has come from the efforts of Twitter and Twitter account holders to fight subpoenas relating to the investigation.

The investigation is not specifically targeted at Bradley Manning, who is the defendant in a separate military trial process. It is not targeted at Swedish sexual assault allegations. It is targeted at WikiLeaks’s, and Assange’s, journalism.

The question for Bob Carr is not whether he has asked the Americans about a sealed indictment (which is not publicly confirmed, but the subject of extensive and corroborated reports, including from WikiLeaks’s opponents) but whether he has demanded to know why an Australian journalist (and found to be a journalist by sources as varied as the UK Supreme Court, the Walkley Foundation in Australia and the Martha Gellhorn trust in the UK) is the target of a US investigation simply for that journalism.

If the Minister doesn’t want to ask about that, there are plenty of other questions he could ask his American counterparts based on what is on the public record:

  • why is the Obama Administration stopping and interrogating activists who have been in contact with Assange when they attempt to travel internationally?
  • why is the Obama Administration orchestrating a financial blockade by major international financial intermediaries of WikiLeaks?
  • why did the Vice-President describe Assange as a terrorist?
  • why did the State Department, with no evidence, insist Assange is not entitled to protections under the First Amendment?

Rather than ask questions about matters that are on the public record, Carr prefers to hew to the narrow government line that this is all about consular support for Assange re Sweden and the Americans have no interest in him.

It’s gutless and feeble stuff from a government that has repeatedly shown itself eager to do anything to keep the US happy.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

80 thoughts on “Bob Carr, in full flight from the facts on Assange

  1. JamesK

    Yes bluepoppy and Michael.

    It’s all ‘a vast right wing conspiracy’ engineered by evil empire imperial Americans.

    The only was to continue to stay protected is to wear the silver-foil hats when thinking in front of the computer screen in mummy’s attic comrades.

  2. Paddy Forsayeth

    Why is it that no one seems to address the fact that Assange in the begining volunteered to be interviewed by the Sweedish police immediately after the allegations of rape were made. A period of some weeks he was available apparently. Am I missing something?

  3. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Of course if Assange’s fears of extradition from Sweden were all a beat up, then it would be trivial for Sweden to publicly make very clear that they would not extradite him to the USA, and for the USA to make very clear that they will not seek extradition, and will not even charge Assange were he to visit the USA.

    What would happened if Assange was in Australia? Would we extradite him? I fear we would.

  4. bluepoppy

    @James K
    The US have had Grand Jury meetings in Virginina about possible indictment against Assange under Espionage Act. See DFAT website FOI disclosure logs it is clearly in the US cables between Australia, US and Sweden. There are two documents in the listing that relate to Assange and Manning. Don’t listen to me just make up your own mind on the evidence.

    Grand Jury deliberations are secret by nature. If there were any charges proposed it would be under sealed indictment. The nature of a sealed indictment is secrecy – the point is nobody knows whether there will be charges or not until a ‘potential’ arrest.

    Carr has done nothing to gain assurances from the US about possible extradition. There is an argument in the US that while Assange did not steal the documents he released confidential information and can possibly be charged. If Assange is not perceived as a journalist (many US panels have discussed this point) it makes the case easier but not impossible. You cannot deny the vehemence of some commentators and politicians against Wikileaks after Collateral Murder and then Cable release.

  5. roberts benjamin

    well. talk about your informed debates.

  6. Owen Gary


    Or shoud your real friends just call you Kay, from what I’ve seen on here
    it seems you would argue shite was chocolate pudding & eat it anyway just to prove a point. Serial pest comes to mind but I dont think you have that much impact, more like an itch that you can’t scratch on your wrectum.

    You really need to get out more, thats if mummy let’s you of course.

  7. Mack the Knife

    Time for your meds JamesK, you’re getting a tad hypo.

    Must break your heart when you demand proof and proof is supplied

  8. izatso?

    so that’s the JamesDunningKruger of sad fame. Fancy gettin’ that complaint named after you. What A Wakker. Tzzzz. With a bit more effort, he should disappear up his lightly perfumed wrectum direckly. Blechhhh like reflux. sick puppet.

  9. JamesK

    Now answer the question: Did you get help?

  10. JamesK

    The poolboy psychiatrist by proxy?


    Sanch was well past his level of incompetence with the leaf net

  11. Sancho

    [Good syntax for a change poolboy.]

    Every sentence in a JamesK post gets its own paragraph, and we just learned that videos are “in-bedded” in web pages, which would come as a great surprise to everyone who’s been embedding clips all these years.

    This behaviour is a known phenomenon:
    [The Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.]

  12. JamesK

    Be honest Sanch.

    Did you get help?

  13. JamesK

    A troll is someone who stirs up trouble because they enjoy making others angry. You can tell from JamesK’s comment history, however, that he honestly believes he’s a good Catholic conservative making a devastating and articulate case against the nefarious left.


    Good syntax for a change poolboy.

  14. Sancho

    A troll is someone who stirs up trouble because they enjoy making others angry. You can tell from JamesK’s comment history, however, that he honestly believes he’s a good Catholic conservative making a devastating and articulate case against the nefarious left.

  15. AR

    Just came over from PP discussion of rightard trolls to see how otiose & deranged JamesK is. Yukk.

  16. Radguy

    JamesK – Al Jazeera reported earlier in their bulletin that US officials were seen entering the Ecuadorean embassy.

    There is no video available on line for this. From memory it was a female reporter who was stationed outside the embassy in the same place as the reporter in the video.

    I will chase this up.

  17. JamesK

    I hasten to add that Al-Jazeera is a cut above ‘their’ ABC.

  18. JamesK

    Watch the video. Earlier that night, one of their reporters also stated that US officials were present.

    Actually having watched the in-bedded vid , the reporter Lawrence Lee said “one assumes there are all sorts diplomatic conversations involving the Swedish government, probably the British, the Americans and the Ecuadorians”

    Who is the one that assumes such “diplomatic conversations”?

    What evidence is there that American diplomats are involved in these putative “diplomatic conversations”?

    None would appear to be the answer.

    It sounds like make-believe quite frankly which would be par for the course for Al-Jazeera

  19. AxeEugene

    ‘why did the Vice-President describe Assange as a terrorist?’

    I’d ask Mr Carr to explain with out using the sgt Schultz ‘we no noth-ing’ routine, how is it spinning up another nations nuclear processing centrifuge not an act of war designed to create a nuclear accident. Does that terrorist act not put lives at risk?

    Secondly, would Mr Carr like to tell us what precautions are underway in protecting our own critical computer systems from inevitable attacks now that Stuxnet has been open source now for years.

    Obama, Bush Behind Stuxnet Worm, Report Says


    Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

    ‘Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.


  20. JamesK

    Sancho, you are a slime.

    I’ve always known you to be stupid but JC always treated you with kid gloves and I assumed you were at least halfway decent.

    You’re not.

  21. Sancho

    [Not one reference]


    Imagine what JamesK must be like away from the internet.

    “James, dear. Can you take the bins out?”
    ‘Do it yourself, slut!”
    “Now James, when we got married we agreed the bins would be your job.”
    “Agreed nothing, slapper! We’re not married! Misogynist! Show me the wedding certificate!”
    “This again? The certificate’s in storage. We got married in front of a hundred people. It’s on video.”
    “Lying hypocrite! Sleaze! No references! You really are a scumbag! Fascist!”

  22. Radguy

    Your post doesn’t answer my question at the top of this page.

  23. JamesK

    Thanks Radguy and fir the link.

    I’ll check it out.


    The US can’t extradite him without filing charges.

    The only basis for charges is if there is evidence that he helped or conspired with Corporal Bradley Manning to steal the files.

    If he merely innocently received them as a journalist then he can’t be successfully indicted let alone extradited.

  24. Radguy

    Reference is from Al Jazeera newshour last Thursday night/Friday morning.


    Watch the video. Earlier that night, one of their reporters also stated that US officials were present.

    Retraction accepted, I presume all the ad hom you wrote, leave it at that.

  25. bluepoppy

    Notice how Carr is now coming out about how ‘bad’ Wikileaks is to reveal secret government business. Is this readiness for an agreement about extradition? To argue there is no evidence the US will extradite in the face of much commentary about secret indictments and acknowledgment of the US of grand jury deliberations on Assange it is just untruthful to keep tossing out the ignorance line.

  26. JamesK

    Damn I really am sorry Radguy.

    That was the mistaken basis on which I have been so in your face.

    I can’t even explain why I made the mistake

  27. JamesK

    Why do you say that I am a misogynist?

    Damn! I’m an idiot. I’m very sorry.

    I’ve had you confused with gapot for the last hour.

    My sincere apologies.

    I of course retract all such references

  28. JamesK

    Link please Radman?

    As usual no one knows what you’re talking about

  29. Radguy

    Why do you say that I am a misogynist?

  30. Radguy

    And now back to the topic – another fact for consideration. Why are US officials involved in discussions regarding Assange’s asylum claim, as reported by Al Jazeera?

    Only the UK, Australia, Sweden and Ecuador would be present if the US had no interest in Assange.

  31. JamesK

    Gee thanks for that reference misogyny-man.

    I was cool.

    Rad even.

  32. Radguy

    My post just sums you up so readers know what you’re about.


    This and the others are in page1 google search terms “jamesk crikey religious” if anyone is interested.

    I’m not really interested in responding to your ad hom or wasting any more time with you.

    Just posting to save anyone the trouble of arguing with a closed minded spinner like yourself.

  33. JamesK

    Interesting mix of opinions here JamesK. All yours.

    And your calling MWH regressive? Lol.

    All progressives are regressive, cowardly Rad-hyaena-guy.

    Now what is it you want to talk about Rad-misogynist-guy?

    Any supposed quotes from me that you want to reference and discuss Rad-cowardly-guy?

    You Rad-piece-of-proverbial-guy.

    References please you piece of proverbial

  34. Radguy

    you’re. silly me.

  35. Radguy

    [if you think that they are all secretly out to convert the unsuspecting and gullible families of the school community… then I would answer and say “It is definitely far fetched”.]

    [And so long as the chaplains are not trying to make everyone else “just like them” – they fill a role that welfare workers cant fill.]

    [She tortures and brainwashes children with the green religion for a living and transfers the same attitude in her dealings with adults too.]

    [Besides which, it also shows a profound misunderstanding of science and how it operates.]

    Interesting mix of opinions here JamesK. All yours.

    And your calling MWH regressive? Lol.

  36. JamesK

    The “heap of slime” is the comments you posted on a public forum, which you now refuse to take responsibility for.

    References so I can respond you piece of proverbial.

  37. Sancho

    For the record, MWH, at the site where JamesK made the posts he now finds so inconvenient, reminding people of their hypocritical comment history will get you banned, so don’t feel too bad for suggesting that comments should be moderated for relevance.

  38. Sancho

    [The shameless sleaze Sancho who posted a heap of slime I cannot respond to now]

    The “heap of slime” is the comments you posted on a public forum, which you now refuse to take responsibility for.

  39. JamesK

    Muhahaha another shamelessly cowardly beta hyaena joins the fray

    My view is that the loss of free speech

    Of course it’s your view Michael.

    Your a sled-described “progressive” which means you’re illiberal and regressive.

    Considering the fact that you haven’t provided one argument, counter-argument or rebuttal all w’end why aren’t you the ‘troll’?

  40. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    I’ve asked the question in Pure Poision’s last open thread of whether Crikey comments would be enhanced if much stricter moderation was enforced so that posts from trolls like JamesK would be deleted.

    My view is that the loss of free speech for the trolls is a small price to pay for the Crikey comments to become an interesting and vibrant place where non-troll views from all political persuasions can be heard.

    I think JamesK has been very effective in making the comments in The Stump boring and uninformative, and this has discouraged sensible people from posting.

    Note that the comments on Murdoch papers are censored so that sensible critics of the article are sometimes (or often?) deleted, so my suggestion is less than what Murdoch is already doing.

  41. JamesK


    The shameless sleaze Sancho who posted a heap of slime I cannot respond to now has the effrontery to suggest I’m the slime.

    I have nothing but contempt for you, Sancho.

    Your first dishonest, silly and aggressive comment to me #6 was answered non-aggressively and you were asked for evidence of your outrageous suggestion.

    You provided nil.

    The common feature of you comments is dense irrationality.

    But you crossed a line with the copious reference-free slander I can’t respond to.

    That’s a hallmark of a cowardly scumbag.

    I note the arrival of another sniveling cowardly hyaena and misogynist Radguy.

    Way to go scumbags both.

  42. Radguy

    Sancho is scum because Sancho exposed you?

    You sound just like all those that we are railing against.

    Bet you wish we were goldfish. Sorry, googs gives us super memory.

    I note that you didn’t deny Sancho’s points regarding your form.

  43. Sancho

    [You are scum of the earth]
    – JamesK, 25/6/12

    [You really are a nasty scumbag]
    – JamesK, 25/6/12

    – JamesK, 25/6/12

    [pathetic dim-bulb]
    – JamesK, 25/6/12

    [inept leftist fool]
    – JamesK, 25/6/12

    [Enagage in debate with fellow commenters as an adult]
    – JamesK, 1/6/12

  44. JamesK

    You are scum of the earth Sancho.

    And a coward.

  45. Sancho

    [Not one reference.]

    I assume you mean links, because anyone reading can simply copy that into Google and get a rundown on what you’ve been saying about the rights of women leading up to your spirited defence of feminism in this thread.

    The site they come from doesn’t warrant any more representation in Google searches, which is what hotlinks would provide, but it’s worth noting that your response to being quoted is to try and evade accountability for you wrote and posted on a public forum. So much for personal responsibility.

  46. JamesK

    Not one reference.

    You really are a nasty scumbag as well stupid Sancho.

  47. Sancho

    Wondered when you’d ask.

    Regarding Sandra Fluke:

    [She’s a woman seeking others fund her sex life to the tune $3000.

    There’s a word for that.]

    [So despite the fact that Fluke has declared to the world under oath that she wants others to fund her sex life free of fears of conception to the tune of $3000, [commenter] is wrong to describe her as a slut?]

    [If a single woman wants [her health insurer to provide contraception] then she’s left herself open to any number of adjectives.]

    Wow! To earn so much hatred this Fluke woman must have done something absolutely…oh. She argued against restricting access to birth control.

    That simple Google search turns up turns up three pages of results, JamesK, and every one is you making a series of attacks on a woman who did nothing more than point out that women choose to use the pill.

    Googling “JamesK slapper” also turns up results that don’t exactly ring with respect for women.

    So the next time you feel like invoking feminism as a way to attack Julian Assange or someone else who scares the Right, keep in mind that your comment history belongs to someone who really, really seems to hate women having freedom and rights.

    Also stumbled across this self-aware gem from your many comments, James:

    [Enagage in debate with fellow commenters as an adult..and fashion an argument or just f**k off.]

    There’s layers and layers to that one.

  48. Nudiefish

    Assange has done nothing wrong and nothing illegal. Most of what Assange published was done in conjunction with two, powerful, long-established and serious newspapers. You can’t go gunning for them can you? Far better to go hunt down an “Australian left-wing Loonie”.

  49. JamesK


    Call me when you’ve dredged up incriminating quotes, dopeysleaze.

  50. Smith Cris

    JamesK, I see your mouth move but this is all I hear:

    Lefty leftist right wing centrist left of center right wing rightist pseudo lefty hyper right of rightest right wing of left center lefty leftism.

    Just saying thats what you sound like.

  51. Sancho

    Look how hard it was to get you say that.

    You abuse people instead of stating a case, use feminism as a defence despite a solid history of expressing rage and hatred against women’s freedom, and only try to cobble together a rational response when insults don’t distract an opponent.

    So, after all the bluster, you just don’t like Julian Assange as a person. Thank you for that considered input into a complicated legal and political debate which will frame international free speech issues for decades to come.

  52. JamesK

    Thick, Two planks. Not long. Proverbial

    So, let’s recap.


    That was pure fantasy poolboy.

    I support Assange being extradited to Sweden to face charges.

    If he’s cleared I support the return of his passport.

    I don’t think Assange can face arrest here.

    I believe Assange should receive the same consular help any Australian would receive despite the fact that he’s a lowlife

    The depths of your stupidity never ceases to be difficult to fully believe, Sanch.

  53. Sancho

    So, let’s recap.

    Julian Assange has a lot of support because he confirmed what many (particularly on the left) have long suspected: that our governments are blatantly lying to us about matters that concern millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

    However, JamesK believes Assange should be extradited and punished because:

    – he is narcissistic
    – he is “a scumbag”
    – he is apparently poor house guest

    When pressed for a real and compelling reason that Assange should be exempt from due process and natural justice, JamesK hurls insults and appeals to the rights of women, despite having a long history of viciously attacking women who speak out in support of their own freedom.

    To top it off, JamesK describes his own comments as “sleaze”.

    So yes. This thread really does clarify the Right/Left divide.

  54. JamesK

    Whilst you mulling over what sleaze to publish dimwit tell us again why my accurate derision of leftist hypocrisy gets a response this mind-numbingly stupid?:

    I don’t know why you bother to get involved in these conversations when your only contribution is always “black is white because shut up leftists”

  55. JamesK

    The pathetic dim-bulb Sancho now doubles down on sleaze.

  56. Sancho

    [The inept leftist fool Sancho goes sleazy]

    That’s an interesting thing to say. I invited readers to check out your…comments regarding women who want access to birth control, and you consider it “sleazy”.

  57. JamesK

    The inept leftist fool Sancho goes sleazy


  58. Sancho

    Speaking of mouth-foaming, I encourage anyone who is interested in JamesK’s history of defending women’s rights and sexual freedom to Google “JamesK Sandra Fluke”. I’d quote, but doubt much of it would get past the moderator.

    What next for our intrepid hardoiled Catholic? A spirited attack on institutional child abuse and church cover-ups?

  59. JamesK

    Oh shit!

    Sancho has decided to go all indignantly nonsensical again.

    At this point of mouth-foaming delusional dross I bow out.

  60. Sancho

    [You don’t see any hypocrisy about a supporter of Assange who are only from the far Left belittling women who make charges of sexual assault?]

    You mean belittling women for charges of sexual assault is for conservatives only?

    You’re angry because you perceive a turf war over misogyny, but still don’t understand why you’re regarded as a trivial thinker to be ignored in any serious discussion.

  61. JamesK

    I don’t know why you bother to get involved in these conversations when your only contribution is always “black is white because shut up leftists”.


    That’s really dumb.

    Even for you Sanch.

    You don’t see any hypocrisy about a supporter of Assange who are only from the far Left belittling women who make charges of sexual assault?

    Is feminism a right wing movement?

    The two women (incidentally) are both left wing activists themselves.

    It’s h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y writ large.

    Grow a pair of cerebral hemispheres Sancho.

  62. Sancho

    [You’re a hypocritical leftist]

    I don’t know why you bother to get involved in these conversations when your only contribution is always “black is white because shut up leftists”.

  63. JamesK

    know what I mean


    You’re a hypocritical leftist

  64. gapot

    Lets not forget about the two ladies in sweden who have not said any thing since the charges were made public. They had their 2 minutes of fame and are now back at their regular jobs…. know what I mean

  65. Stephen

    Wow, that really got the fur and feathers flying, didn’t it? Had to sweep ’em off the front porch.

    On all of his known political behaviour and political record, it’s hard to believe that an operator like Carr could remotely be “objective” about a situation like Assange. Ditto Roxon, whose knee-jerk dismissal of the School Chaplains decision was typical of her undistinguished A-G tenure.

    There’s much to dislike or even detest about Assange, but all the more reason for the Australian Government to at least try to pretend that it’s playing fair.

  66. JamesK

    As Gerard Henderson said on Insiders: “Julian Assange is a complete narcissist who has now welched on the people who put up bail for him”

    Guardian: Julian Assange proves a useful idiot

    The mystery is why Assange should agree to become a pawn in the Kremlin’s global information war. Perhaps he needs the money. Assange’s anti-American agenda, of course, fits neatly with the Kremlin’s own. Russia prides itself on having undesirable allies; expect Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez or Belarus’s Alexander Lukashenko on future shows.

    Even Kathy Lette who had him as a house guest said “lets just say he isn’t house-trained”.

    Assange is a scumbag

  67. Radguy

    You shilly shill jk. I hope you’re getting paid. Anyone not getting paid to savage Assange is a fool. If you are getting paid, you’re an even bigger fool, just for reasons you can’t understand. Shills are spread a bit thin, just check out Cohen’s filth on the “Guardian”, noting the recommendations.

    I also note @sianushkas squalid blog which is being tweeted a fair bit, has very few comments, mostly kissing her arse. I didn’t bother posting there, she’d probably blow a gasket if I wrote what I felt, let alone allow me to post it.

  68. JamesK

    I’m not the Cambrian Trader Sanch 🙂

  69. Sancho

    [Finished the pool cleaning for the w’end Sancho?]

    Ah, yes. JamesK, otherwise known as J.C. on other parts of the internet, apparently, and still making the strong, fact-based arguments he’s known for.

  70. JamesK

    I am interested in what people more knowledgable than me think would happen if Assange somehow made it make to Australia, so I hope someone comments on this.

    (I’m now ignoring JamesK).

    In a jiffy, that infamous right-wing war-monger Attorney-General Nicola Roxon will extradite Julian-the-hero to Washington where he will be instantly dispatched to Hell in ‘Ol Sparky rather than dying humanely of lethal injection at the hands of the callous bloodthirsty eeeevil Americans who don’t give a fig about justice

  71. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    I am interested in what people more knowledgable than me think would happen if Assange somehow made it make to Australia, so I hope someone comments on this.

    (I’m now ignoring JamesK).

  72. JamesK

    Finished the pool cleaning for the w’end Sancho?

    What “concrete proof that the leaders of the western world lie to the citizens routinely”?

  73. JamesK

    What I don’t understand is why Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) bothers to comment when he has no genuine point make.

    And God forbid that he would would deign to defend his frequently insane assertions when he is questioned for evidence or rationale to support those assertions.

    What about the criticism I actually made Michael?

    Or is even that beyond your capabilities?

    Or perhaps you realise that historically any rebuttal from you would certainly be beyond your capability to defend.

  74. Sancho

    It speaks volumes about the state of modern conservatism that JamesK is enraged because someone provided concrete proof that the leaders of the western world lie to the citizens routinely, and wishes the messenger shot.

    As for Gerard Henderson’s credibility, Mark Latham has been doing a thorough job on Crikey of chronicling the howling errors of fact and massive ideological overreach that is standard for Henderson.


  75. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    What I don’t understand is why JamesK bothers to read Bernard’s article if he thinks others have “a million times the credibility”.

  76. JamesK

    The Sydney Institute is “secret right wing think tank” according to the infamous Marilyn.

    “The Sydney Institute plays a very valuable role in stimulating and contributing to the public debate about which policy settings best serve Australia’s national interest.”
    – Stephen Smith

    “Since 1989, The Sydney Institute has been a platform for public policy debate on Australia’s future. The nation should always embrace such debate – with genuine intellectual passion and with genuine intellectual rigour.”
    – Kevin Rudd

    “The Sydney Institute is in the forefront of public discussions and public debate.”
    – Julia Gillard

    The Sydney Institute provides a forum for ideas, a place where theories can be tested and questions asked of those who profess to have answers. It is friendly rather than stuffy but deadly serious in its commitment to open debate. We need it.”
    – Jana Wendt

    “Thank you Sydney Institute for giving me a platform on topics from Tiananmen Square to advocating a humanitarian approach to asylum seekers.”
    – Linda Jaivin

    “The Institute is a civilised and pluralist island of ideas and conversation in a sea of spin and obfuscation. It’s one of the few attributes that gives this Melburnian genuine Sydney envy.”
    – Sam Lipski

    “The Sydney Institute is an important forum for the serious discussion and debate of public policy and policy reform.”
    – Stephen Conroy

    “The Sydney Institute makes a wonderful contribution to the public debate in Australia on a broad array of relevant and interesting issues.”
    – Simon Crean

    “In the marketplace for ideas “there’s no other store like the Sydney Institute!”
    – Fred Hilmer

    “The Sydney Institute consistently attracts Sydney’s most thoughtful and engaged audiences.”
    – Hugh Mackay

    “Addressing The Sydney Institute provides an opportunity to speak in depth about public policy. It’s rare to find the time to reflect on the whole picture, the structures and frameworks which underpin policy and implementation.”
    – Jenny Macklin

    “The Sydney Institute – a no-nonsense, downtown venue for all credible points of view on Australian politics, history and culture. It leaves ideology at the door, and its podcasts guarantee a hearing the length and breadth of the country.”
    – Frank Brennan

    “One of the joys of life in Sydney is the lively exchange that is promoted by the efforts of Anne and Gerard. The intellectual life of a city matters and the Institute plays a vital role in sustaining that.”
    – Maxine McKew

    Henderson was an adviser to Howard in the mid 80’s

    I wonder if Marilyn will ever tire of making a fool of herself?

    Nah – just kidding that will never stop happening.

  77. shepherdmarilyn

    Henderson credible? ON what? Being Howard’s one time right wing adviser before he set up his secret right wing think tank?

    JamesK, you live in la la land.

  78. JamesK

    One is that “there’s a view that it would be easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than it would be from Sweden.” Some do hold that view – I’ve encountered it on Twitter from angry opponents of Assange. But it’s not a view held by anyone with credibility.

    That’s hogwash.

    On Insiders alone, Dennis Atkins the famous right-winger said many of his infamous right-wing contacts concurred and Gerard Henderson a very moderate and precise conservative historian and lawyer said the same thing.

    One thing for sure is that Gerard Henderson has a million times the “credibility” of Bernard Keane or that appropriately big headed bouffant Geoffrey Robertson.

    The suggestion the “War on Terror” temporary surrender mechanism would be triggered by Sweden is leftist activist fear-mongering.

    Furthermore even if Assange were brought to the US to face charges that he would put to death by lethal injection is itself puerile fear-mongering.

    Personally I think Assange is a destructive narcissist and I hope the Left continue to their righteous indignation/mouth-foaming support for him.

    It clarifies the Left/Right divide for the punters.

  79. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    What some of the leaked cables prove is that in international diplomacy it is the people who are being lied to whilst the governments involved all know perfectly well what is happening.

    So it is ironic that Carr is engaging in the type of public dissipation that the leaks exposed.

    And I wonder what would happen if Assange (magically) appeared in Australia. Would he be safe, or would the Australian government prosecute him here (for what?) or hand him over to the US?

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/24/bob-carr-in-full-flight-from-the-facts-on-assange/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.