I posted about Julian in dec 2010 , and now in march 2012, Julian Assange - from Wikileaks, has said he will run for the senate.
Run. Julian Run..
Will he bring down this government, just as I said?
Maybe. Perhaps they will go anyway.
The Queensland elections held on 24.3.12 was an absolute disaster for Labor.
Labor suffered the biggest defeat in Australian Political history.
The rise in energy costs, the constant harping about Tony Abbot, the lack of postive confidence building direction, the carbon tax, the mining tax, and all the poltical positioning re Kevin Rudd. Not to mention the waste and constant spending. The schools tuck shops were rorted while more than 100,000 people are homeless and sleeping in their cars (just in NSW).
More public housing would have at least brought in rent. or better still let them pay the house off at a very low interest.
There would have been a benefit to communities especially if built near big rural towns.
Should I mention the banks?
Should I say that a reduction in negative gearing would bring down the price of houses, and make home ownership affordable?
The above issues have all added to the
disgust with this government.
There's been no consultation with the voters, I could even add, no respect for the wishes of Australians.
Even the solar energy subsidy was thrown out, yet holden received 275 million (approx) assistance just for putting their hand out, which they will do again.
Not to mention this government's refusal to assist wikileaks.
I could add more, but I won't. I can't be bothered.
I'm one of the small ten percent (called swinging voters) who change their vote and who create change. a 16% swing away from labor last saturday showed that more and more people are willing to vote for change.
Change is onthe way.
Meg
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Wikileaks will bring down Gillard
Hi to all comfy voters.
Julian Assange (Wikileaks Publisher of leaked govt documents) has already
been on posters with a likeness to Che Guevara, the cuban
revolutionary/terrorist depending on your viewpoint, the one well known in the black beret.
Julian and Wikileaks will be seen as freedom fighters and matyrs. (freedom
of the press and anti usa sentiment) .Below is an article about bob brown and Julia Gillard, which puts it so succinctly. When USA senators call for him to be executed, we know we have lost all pretense of justice and fairness, and Aussie independence.
This will prove to be the case of this century. Australians will have do
everything to help him fight this battle. Already he was refused bail, for a trumped up rape case with two women who admit consent. One charge said he used his body weight to coerce, and another says he refused to use a condom when asked. So he is accused of rape and is refused bail in a British court.
If you weren't political before, this case will make you take sides.
kind regards,
Meg
Below are two pertinent articles.
Julian Assange is Gillard's Hicks blunder
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42082.html
Glenn Milne
Julia Gillard needs to change her approach to condemning WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange - and quickly.
The risk of him becoming her final equivalent of John Howard's David Hicks
is much more dangerous to Gillard politically than Hicks ever was to Howard.
For the purpose of the Assange comparison it's worth recalling the details
of Hicks political-legal life. According to Assange's web cousin, Wikipedia,
Hicks trained at the Al Qaeda linked Al Farouq training camp in 2001. He was
captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 by the Afghan Northern Alliance and
sold for a $1,000 bounty to the United States military.
He was transported to Guantanamo Bay where he was designated an enemy
combatant, during which time he alleges he was tortured. Charges were first
laid against Hicks in 2004 under a military commission system newly created
by presidential order. Those proceedings failed in 2006 when the US Supreme
Court ruled the system unconstitutional.
Military commissions were subsequently re-established by an act of the US
Congress. Revised charges were laid against Hicks in February 2007 before a
new commission under the new act. The following month, in accordance with a
pre-trial agreement struck with convening authority Judge Susan J Crawford,
Hicks entered a plea to a single new codified charge of "providing material
support for terrorism". Hicks's legal team attributed his acceptance of the
plea bargain to "his desperation for release from Guantanamo".
In April 2007 Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine
months of a suspended seven-year sentence. I lay out the facts to stress the
longitude of the Hicks case. This is important when we come to consider the
comparison of Gillard's relative knee-jerk reaction to Assange.
During the time his case lingered Hicks, despite admitting to carrying out
terrorist acts in the Indian border with Pakistan, became the poster boy for
so-called "Howard haters" across the country and internationally. Initially,
and for a good stretch of time afterwards, Howard's tough political line on
Hicks worked a treat for him in an electorate looking for the emotional post
9/11 security, albeit of the Marvel comic book form, offered up by George W
Bush's "war on terror".
But by the time of the 2007 election voters were jaundiced against Howard
generally. Swept up in that swing away from Howard personally was his
treatment of Hicks. Somewhere along the line Australians' notion of a "fair
go" kicked in and voters came to see Hicks's imprisonment without trial as
oppressive. Even Howard, in his recent memoirs "Lazarus Rising", admits he
vilified Hicks for too long and it ended being a net negative for him
politically.
Here it must be said that Julia Gillard is no John Howard. Which is exactly
the point. And also where the danger lies for the current Prime Minister
with her decision to try to smash Assange and his reputation so totally and
so fast and regardless of legal niceties.
Chief among those legal niceties is that Assange has not yet been found
guilty of any offence by any court anywhere in the world. That has not
stopped Gillard in her new role as information age Executioner-in-Chief
already judging Assange guilty of heinous - albeit undefined - crimes.
Here's what the Prime Minister had to say on Tuesday. She argued firstly
that the "foundation stone" (whatever that is) of the WikiLeaks website was
illegal. Then this: "We have the Australian Federal Police (AFP) looking to
see whether Australian laws have been broken and then we've got the gross
irresponsibility of this conduct."
Come Friday the AFP apparently still had not determined whether any of the
Australian laws Gillard cited had been broken. The remarkable nature of
Gillard's complete disregard for the notion of the presumption of innocence
was highlighted immediately by condemnation from both the shadow
attorney-general, George Brandis SC, and Malcolm Turnbull, who made his
legal and political bones by defending a Cold War MI5 agent's attempts to
publish his memoirs of an eventful life in the celebrated "Spycatcher" case.
But let's put the law to one side for the moment and simply focus on the
politics.
Howard's initial successful exploitation of the Hicks case rested on the
fact that he effectively drove a wedge between Labor's blue collar
mainstream base (who where anti-Hicks) and its Left urban civil libertarian
grouping, which in the end proved more articulate, persuasive and principled
when it came to Hicks. Over seven years they won the day by winning over the
majority of Australians, if not to their cause at least to their case.
In the Assange matter Gillard has done exactly the same as Howard. Except
she is the one doing the wedging between herself and a critical part of her
own Labor base. Consider who turned up at Assange's London committal hearing
with self publicity serving offers of bail backing; Australian left-wing
proselytizer, polemicist and general anti-US myth maker John Pilger,
millionaire celebrity cricket divorcee, Jemima Kahn, and film maker Ken
Loach. None of them had actually met Assange.
Such is the Townsville born Australian's capacity to mobilise and divide
public opinion. Back in Australia when social activists Jeff Sparrow and
Elizabeth O'Shea posted an open letter to Gillard on The Drum about her
pre-emptive legal condemnation of Assange the site received more than 4,000
comments, mostly signatures in support of the appeal, before collapsing,
literally, under the weight of the response.
The names of some of these signatories is informative: Julian Burnside,
Peter Singer, Adam Bandt, Mungo MacCallum, Webdy Bacon, Alastair Nicholson,
Julian Morrow, Helen Garner, Dennis Altman, Stepphen Keim, Hilary McPhee and
Greg Barns among lots of others.
You get the picture. In the broad this is the same group that defended
Hicks, condemns the treatment of asylum seekers, opposed the Iraq war, and
probably the war in Afghanistan. Most were - and are - "Howard haters". They
are natural Labor supporters. But Gillard's clumsy and morally suspect
assault on Assange has now emphatically pitted her against her most
articulate constituency.
And she hasn't even got it right on the broader front of mainstream
Australians. Howard, at least at the start, successfully mobilised this
group against David Hicks. This is not the case with Assange. A newspoll
published in The Australian on Thursday showed a massive 74.7 per cent of
Australians were opposed to any attempts to extradite Assange to the US.
That's "extradite", remind yourself. We haven't even got near the question
of whether he should be jailed - or incredibly as some US Right-wing desktop
assassins are suggesting - that he be taken out. On the ABC News Radio
website 88 per cent of respondents answered "no" to the question of whether
the Australian Government was acting "appropriately" towards Assange.
And surely that is the threshold question here. What has Assange done wrong
in the minds of the Australian public? To date no-one has died as a result
of his actions. He's dumped a bucketful of information onto the net which
most foot soldiers in a democracy (ie voters), who feel routinely threatened
by big government, probably feel their entitled to. And, most importantly
when it comes to public opinion, there are no pictures of Assange with a
rocket-propelled grenade, slung over his shoulder in Chechnya either.
So unlike Howard in the case of Hicks, Gillard does not even have majority
support on her side at the beginning of what will inevitably be the Assange
legal saga. And into whose arms is she driving the Labor culturally elite
malcontent cohort represented by Assange's celebrity supporters? Why Bob
Brown's of course.
Unlike Gillard, Brown, the dominant politician within the Government, knows
instinctively where his base is. He immediately knifed Gillard without qualm
on Assange declaring: "What we need from the Foreign Minister or the
Attorney-General is clear evidence that the Australian Government is
materially assisting to ensure that Assange's legal rights are met and that
everything is done possible to ensure that he is not fitted out with a
process to have him extradited to Sweden and then to the US under political
pressure that's not publicly obvious."
No niceties from Brown who's meant to be a coalition partner in a
Green-Labor Government. So Right when Brown has split the ALP and the
Government on totemic niche issues like gay marriage, right when Gillard
needs to shore up her Left flank, what does she do? She blows it on Assange.
It's a metaphor really for a Government and a Prime Minister that right now,
seemingly can't take a trick.
Glenn Milne has been covering Canberra politics for more than two decades.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-plans-to-surrender/story-e6freuy9-1225967047285
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange plans to surrender
a.. Lucy Carne, European correspondent
b.. From: The Daily Telegraph
c.. December 07, 2010 2:54PM
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Source: AP
THE hunt may soon be over for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as the
fugitive Australian plans to surrender to British police overnight.
Scotland Yard was expected to serve the 39-year-old with a European Arrest
Warrant over alleged sexual assaults in Sweden earlier this year.
The warrant forms the first steps in extraditing Mr Assange, who is believed
to be in hiding with friends southeast of London, to Sweden for questioning
over the "sex crimes" claims.
Two women - who met Mr Assange when he was in Sweden for lectures - claimed
he sexually attacked them.
Both said they had consensual sex with the notorious campaigner, but said he
refused to wear a condom.
In more bad news for the Australian fugitive, it has emerged that another
source of WikiLeaks' crucial funds has been frozen in an attempt to cripple
the whistleblowing website.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
a.. Terror targets leaked
b.. Julian Assange: Murder threats to family
a.. Worldwide rallies to defend Assange Adelaide Now, 11 hours ago
b.. WikiLeaks spy charge 'not on' Herald Sun, 1 day ago
c.. WikiLeaks rival 'to open Monday' Herald Sun, 1 day ago
d.. It was only a matter of time before web war Courier Mail, 2 days ago
e.. Teen WikiLeaks 'hack-tivist' arrested The Daily Telegraph, 2 days ago
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
MasterCard has pulled the plug on payments to WikiLeaks, news website CNET
reported.
The move will further financially starve the embattled website.
"MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept
MasterCard-branded products," MasterCard Worldwide spokesman Chris Monteiro
said.
"MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in
or facilitating any action that is illegal."
WikiLeaks has responded to threats on its funding with online pleas to "Keep
us strong." People could still donate to the website using Visa, bank
transfers, or sending donations by old-fashioned "snail mail."
The sudden move follows US Government pressure on any companies connected to
WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate its relationship with them".
WikiLeaks estimated they have so far lost Au$133,000 from missed donations
due to the payment source collapses this week.
Swiss authorities also yesterday shut down a bank account belonging to Mr
Assange.
The Swiss Post Office's banking arm said it closed an account set up by the
Australian after he gave a false home address for Geneva but could not prove
he lived there.
WikiLeaks had advertised the PostFinance account details online to "donate
directly to the Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks Staff Defense Fund,"
giving an account name of "Assange Julian Paul, Geneve."
WikiLeaks was also recently dropped by its US servers and is now based out
of Switzerland.
It was also recently dumped by online payment service PayPal.
WikiLeaks also battled technological attacks when a "hacktivist" shut down
the website for 28 hours during last weekend.
Those responsible for the attack said in a statement on Twitter that the
hack was revenge for WikiLeaks "attempting to endanger the lives of our
troops, other assets & foreign relations".
He said the US Justice Department had "a very serious, active, ongoing
investigation that is criminal in nature" into the WikiLeaks saga.
Mr Assange sent a chilling threat to the US government saying if he was
prosecuted or assassinated he would unlock a 'poison pill' - the entire
archive of internal cables which have been downloaded in a secret document
by more than "100,000 people".
Since last Monday WikiLeaks have released just 1000 of the 251,287 cables .
Mr Assange has said he would appeal any charges stemming from the Swedish
sexual assault claims.
"We will fight them and expose them, naturally," he told Spain's El Pais
newspaper on Saturday.
"That there is something "wrong" with this case is now obvious to everyone."
His lawyer Mark Stephens, of Stephens Finers Innocent, said he believed the
Swedish claims were a "political stunt".
Mr Stephens confirmed British police had telephoned him to notify him that
they would serve the extradition request from Sweden.
He refused to confirm whether his client was in Britain, but said the
meeting would take place somewhere in Britain.
"The arrangements I have been making are for him to come and meet the
British police," Stephens said, without giving a date for the interview.
One British newspaper reported that Mr Assange would be expected to post
bail of between 100,000 pounds and 200,000 pounds and would need up to six
people offering surety.
But Mr Stephens said while he had been informed of the warrant, he knew
nothing of a pending court appearance.
"I have not concluded any arrangements with the police at this time," he
said.
The US Government was also yesterday increasing their efforts to prosecute
Mr Assange for criminal activity over WikiLeaks' release of 250,000 US
diplomatic cables.
Despite being an Australian citizen, Mr Assange would still be put on trial
in America, legal experts said.
US Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration was
considering using laws under the Espionage Act to prosecute Mr Assange over
releasing information that threatened public safety.
40 comments on this story
Julian Assange (Wikileaks Publisher of leaked govt documents) has already
been on posters with a likeness to Che Guevara, the cuban
revolutionary/terrorist depending on your viewpoint, the one well known in the black beret.
Julian and Wikileaks will be seen as freedom fighters and matyrs. (freedom
of the press and anti usa sentiment) .Below is an article about bob brown and Julia Gillard, which puts it so succinctly. When USA senators call for him to be executed, we know we have lost all pretense of justice and fairness, and Aussie independence.
This will prove to be the case of this century. Australians will have do
everything to help him fight this battle. Already he was refused bail, for a trumped up rape case with two women who admit consent. One charge said he used his body weight to coerce, and another says he refused to use a condom when asked. So he is accused of rape and is refused bail in a British court.
If you weren't political before, this case will make you take sides.
kind regards,
Meg
Below are two pertinent articles.
Julian Assange is Gillard's Hicks blunder
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42082.html
Glenn Milne
Julia Gillard needs to change her approach to condemning WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange - and quickly.
The risk of him becoming her final equivalent of John Howard's David Hicks
is much more dangerous to Gillard politically than Hicks ever was to Howard.
For the purpose of the Assange comparison it's worth recalling the details
of Hicks political-legal life. According to Assange's web cousin, Wikipedia,
Hicks trained at the Al Qaeda linked Al Farouq training camp in 2001. He was
captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 by the Afghan Northern Alliance and
sold for a $1,000 bounty to the United States military.
He was transported to Guantanamo Bay where he was designated an enemy
combatant, during which time he alleges he was tortured. Charges were first
laid against Hicks in 2004 under a military commission system newly created
by presidential order. Those proceedings failed in 2006 when the US Supreme
Court ruled the system unconstitutional.
Military commissions were subsequently re-established by an act of the US
Congress. Revised charges were laid against Hicks in February 2007 before a
new commission under the new act. The following month, in accordance with a
pre-trial agreement struck with convening authority Judge Susan J Crawford,
Hicks entered a plea to a single new codified charge of "providing material
support for terrorism". Hicks's legal team attributed his acceptance of the
plea bargain to "his desperation for release from Guantanamo".
In April 2007 Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine
months of a suspended seven-year sentence. I lay out the facts to stress the
longitude of the Hicks case. This is important when we come to consider the
comparison of Gillard's relative knee-jerk reaction to Assange.
During the time his case lingered Hicks, despite admitting to carrying out
terrorist acts in the Indian border with Pakistan, became the poster boy for
so-called "Howard haters" across the country and internationally. Initially,
and for a good stretch of time afterwards, Howard's tough political line on
Hicks worked a treat for him in an electorate looking for the emotional post
9/11 security, albeit of the Marvel comic book form, offered up by George W
Bush's "war on terror".
But by the time of the 2007 election voters were jaundiced against Howard
generally. Swept up in that swing away from Howard personally was his
treatment of Hicks. Somewhere along the line Australians' notion of a "fair
go" kicked in and voters came to see Hicks's imprisonment without trial as
oppressive. Even Howard, in his recent memoirs "Lazarus Rising", admits he
vilified Hicks for too long and it ended being a net negative for him
politically.
Here it must be said that Julia Gillard is no John Howard. Which is exactly
the point. And also where the danger lies for the current Prime Minister
with her decision to try to smash Assange and his reputation so totally and
so fast and regardless of legal niceties.
Chief among those legal niceties is that Assange has not yet been found
guilty of any offence by any court anywhere in the world. That has not
stopped Gillard in her new role as information age Executioner-in-Chief
already judging Assange guilty of heinous - albeit undefined - crimes.
Here's what the Prime Minister had to say on Tuesday. She argued firstly
that the "foundation stone" (whatever that is) of the WikiLeaks website was
illegal. Then this: "We have the Australian Federal Police (AFP) looking to
see whether Australian laws have been broken and then we've got the gross
irresponsibility of this conduct."
Come Friday the AFP apparently still had not determined whether any of the
Australian laws Gillard cited had been broken. The remarkable nature of
Gillard's complete disregard for the notion of the presumption of innocence
was highlighted immediately by condemnation from both the shadow
attorney-general, George Brandis SC, and Malcolm Turnbull, who made his
legal and political bones by defending a Cold War MI5 agent's attempts to
publish his memoirs of an eventful life in the celebrated "Spycatcher" case.
But let's put the law to one side for the moment and simply focus on the
politics.
Howard's initial successful exploitation of the Hicks case rested on the
fact that he effectively drove a wedge between Labor's blue collar
mainstream base (who where anti-Hicks) and its Left urban civil libertarian
grouping, which in the end proved more articulate, persuasive and principled
when it came to Hicks. Over seven years they won the day by winning over the
majority of Australians, if not to their cause at least to their case.
In the Assange matter Gillard has done exactly the same as Howard. Except
she is the one doing the wedging between herself and a critical part of her
own Labor base. Consider who turned up at Assange's London committal hearing
with self publicity serving offers of bail backing; Australian left-wing
proselytizer, polemicist and general anti-US myth maker John Pilger,
millionaire celebrity cricket divorcee, Jemima Kahn, and film maker Ken
Loach. None of them had actually met Assange.
Such is the Townsville born Australian's capacity to mobilise and divide
public opinion. Back in Australia when social activists Jeff Sparrow and
Elizabeth O'Shea posted an open letter to Gillard on The Drum about her
pre-emptive legal condemnation of Assange the site received more than 4,000
comments, mostly signatures in support of the appeal, before collapsing,
literally, under the weight of the response.
The names of some of these signatories is informative: Julian Burnside,
Peter Singer, Adam Bandt, Mungo MacCallum, Webdy Bacon, Alastair Nicholson,
Julian Morrow, Helen Garner, Dennis Altman, Stepphen Keim, Hilary McPhee and
Greg Barns among lots of others.
You get the picture. In the broad this is the same group that defended
Hicks, condemns the treatment of asylum seekers, opposed the Iraq war, and
probably the war in Afghanistan. Most were - and are - "Howard haters". They
are natural Labor supporters. But Gillard's clumsy and morally suspect
assault on Assange has now emphatically pitted her against her most
articulate constituency.
And she hasn't even got it right on the broader front of mainstream
Australians. Howard, at least at the start, successfully mobilised this
group against David Hicks. This is not the case with Assange. A newspoll
published in The Australian on Thursday showed a massive 74.7 per cent of
Australians were opposed to any attempts to extradite Assange to the US.
That's "extradite", remind yourself. We haven't even got near the question
of whether he should be jailed - or incredibly as some US Right-wing desktop
assassins are suggesting - that he be taken out. On the ABC News Radio
website 88 per cent of respondents answered "no" to the question of whether
the Australian Government was acting "appropriately" towards Assange.
And surely that is the threshold question here. What has Assange done wrong
in the minds of the Australian public? To date no-one has died as a result
of his actions. He's dumped a bucketful of information onto the net which
most foot soldiers in a democracy (ie voters), who feel routinely threatened
by big government, probably feel their entitled to. And, most importantly
when it comes to public opinion, there are no pictures of Assange with a
rocket-propelled grenade, slung over his shoulder in Chechnya either.
So unlike Howard in the case of Hicks, Gillard does not even have majority
support on her side at the beginning of what will inevitably be the Assange
legal saga. And into whose arms is she driving the Labor culturally elite
malcontent cohort represented by Assange's celebrity supporters? Why Bob
Brown's of course.
Unlike Gillard, Brown, the dominant politician within the Government, knows
instinctively where his base is. He immediately knifed Gillard without qualm
on Assange declaring: "What we need from the Foreign Minister or the
Attorney-General is clear evidence that the Australian Government is
materially assisting to ensure that Assange's legal rights are met and that
everything is done possible to ensure that he is not fitted out with a
process to have him extradited to Sweden and then to the US under political
pressure that's not publicly obvious."
No niceties from Brown who's meant to be a coalition partner in a
Green-Labor Government. So Right when Brown has split the ALP and the
Government on totemic niche issues like gay marriage, right when Gillard
needs to shore up her Left flank, what does she do? She blows it on Assange.
It's a metaphor really for a Government and a Prime Minister that right now,
seemingly can't take a trick.
Glenn Milne has been covering Canberra politics for more than two decades.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-plans-to-surrender/story-e6freuy9-1225967047285
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange plans to surrender
a.. Lucy Carne, European correspondent
b.. From: The Daily Telegraph
c.. December 07, 2010 2:54PM
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Source: AP
THE hunt may soon be over for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as the
fugitive Australian plans to surrender to British police overnight.
Scotland Yard was expected to serve the 39-year-old with a European Arrest
Warrant over alleged sexual assaults in Sweden earlier this year.
The warrant forms the first steps in extraditing Mr Assange, who is believed
to be in hiding with friends southeast of London, to Sweden for questioning
over the "sex crimes" claims.
Two women - who met Mr Assange when he was in Sweden for lectures - claimed
he sexually attacked them.
Both said they had consensual sex with the notorious campaigner, but said he
refused to wear a condom.
In more bad news for the Australian fugitive, it has emerged that another
source of WikiLeaks' crucial funds has been frozen in an attempt to cripple
the whistleblowing website.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
a.. Terror targets leaked
b.. Julian Assange: Murder threats to family
a.. Worldwide rallies to defend Assange Adelaide Now, 11 hours ago
b.. WikiLeaks spy charge 'not on' Herald Sun, 1 day ago
c.. WikiLeaks rival 'to open Monday' Herald Sun, 1 day ago
d.. It was only a matter of time before web war Courier Mail, 2 days ago
e.. Teen WikiLeaks 'hack-tivist' arrested The Daily Telegraph, 2 days ago
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
MasterCard has pulled the plug on payments to WikiLeaks, news website CNET
reported.
The move will further financially starve the embattled website.
"MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept
MasterCard-branded products," MasterCard Worldwide spokesman Chris Monteiro
said.
"MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in
or facilitating any action that is illegal."
WikiLeaks has responded to threats on its funding with online pleas to "Keep
us strong." People could still donate to the website using Visa, bank
transfers, or sending donations by old-fashioned "snail mail."
The sudden move follows US Government pressure on any companies connected to
WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate its relationship with them".
WikiLeaks estimated they have so far lost Au$133,000 from missed donations
due to the payment source collapses this week.
Swiss authorities also yesterday shut down a bank account belonging to Mr
Assange.
The Swiss Post Office's banking arm said it closed an account set up by the
Australian after he gave a false home address for Geneva but could not prove
he lived there.
WikiLeaks had advertised the PostFinance account details online to "donate
directly to the Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks Staff Defense Fund,"
giving an account name of "Assange Julian Paul, Geneve."
WikiLeaks was also recently dropped by its US servers and is now based out
of Switzerland.
It was also recently dumped by online payment service PayPal.
WikiLeaks also battled technological attacks when a "hacktivist" shut down
the website for 28 hours during last weekend.
Those responsible for the attack said in a statement on Twitter that the
hack was revenge for WikiLeaks "attempting to endanger the lives of our
troops, other assets & foreign relations".
He said the US Justice Department had "a very serious, active, ongoing
investigation that is criminal in nature" into the WikiLeaks saga.
Mr Assange sent a chilling threat to the US government saying if he was
prosecuted or assassinated he would unlock a 'poison pill' - the entire
archive of internal cables which have been downloaded in a secret document
by more than "100,000 people".
Since last Monday WikiLeaks have released just 1000 of the 251,287 cables .
Mr Assange has said he would appeal any charges stemming from the Swedish
sexual assault claims.
"We will fight them and expose them, naturally," he told Spain's El Pais
newspaper on Saturday.
"That there is something "wrong" with this case is now obvious to everyone."
His lawyer Mark Stephens, of Stephens Finers Innocent, said he believed the
Swedish claims were a "political stunt".
Mr Stephens confirmed British police had telephoned him to notify him that
they would serve the extradition request from Sweden.
He refused to confirm whether his client was in Britain, but said the
meeting would take place somewhere in Britain.
"The arrangements I have been making are for him to come and meet the
British police," Stephens said, without giving a date for the interview.
One British newspaper reported that Mr Assange would be expected to post
bail of between 100,000 pounds and 200,000 pounds and would need up to six
people offering surety.
But Mr Stephens said while he had been informed of the warrant, he knew
nothing of a pending court appearance.
"I have not concluded any arrangements with the police at this time," he
said.
The US Government was also yesterday increasing their efforts to prosecute
Mr Assange for criminal activity over WikiLeaks' release of 250,000 US
diplomatic cables.
Despite being an Australian citizen, Mr Assange would still be put on trial
in America, legal experts said.
US Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration was
considering using laws under the Espionage Act to prosecute Mr Assange over
releasing information that threatened public safety.
40 comments on this story
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
labor is in 76 (2 independents and 1 green.)
Now we know the result.
Labor is in with Oakshot and Windsor's support.
Julia is about to see the Govenor General now.
If we do have another election , can I ask all of you to consider supporting others (any like minded independent senate and or marginal seat contenders.) and explore how you can claim a 3rd party support refund for any money spent. (it is refundable)
I can only say, its a bit like investing..
you can't put all your eggs in one basket.
Not when so much is at stake. You must diversify and spread the risk.
Mning Tax, here it comes. The greens in the senate, will certainly push harder then Gillard. A constitutional challenge might work, but might not.
Labor is in with Oakshot and Windsor's support.
Julia is about to see the Govenor General now.
If we do have another election , can I ask all of you to consider supporting others (any like minded independent senate and or marginal seat contenders.) and explore how you can claim a 3rd party support refund for any money spent. (it is refundable)
I can only say, its a bit like investing..
you can't put all your eggs in one basket.
Not when so much is at stake. You must diversify and spread the risk.
Mning Tax, here it comes. The greens in the senate, will certainly push harder then Gillard. A constitutional challenge might work, but might not.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Thanks to all who voted for me..
What a result!. right now a possible hung parliament, but maybe a coalition win of one seat with negotiated agreement of the 3 independents.
The Liberals have a "moral right" to govern, in that they had a higher primary vote than labor. Labor had a preference swap with the greens, and that 2nd preference has helped them to be nearly "over the line". In some places their vote dropped as low as 35% others 38%.
The greens now will have 9 in the senate after July , and 1 in the house of reps. 14%of the vote, and the preferences made them the kingmakers.They are far left, not like the Australian Democrats who were centre -left.
We can look forward to much more instability, and a futher damage to our good investment destination - our reputation. The sharemarket is likely to remain under the 4500 level for sometime.
The USA looks to be in more trouble and the 2nd wave recession is looming. so cut back on your costs, and unecessary spending.
We might see another federal election in 18mths. so be ready.
The Liberals have a "moral right" to govern, in that they had a higher primary vote than labor. Labor had a preference swap with the greens, and that 2nd preference has helped them to be nearly "over the line". In some places their vote dropped as low as 35% others 38%.
The greens now will have 9 in the senate after July , and 1 in the house of reps. 14%of the vote, and the preferences made them the kingmakers.They are far left, not like the Australian Democrats who were centre -left.
We can look forward to much more instability, and a futher damage to our good investment destination - our reputation. The sharemarket is likely to remain under the 4500 level for sometime.
The USA looks to be in more trouble and the 2nd wave recession is looming. so cut back on your costs, and unecessary spending.
We might see another federal election in 18mths. so be ready.
Friday, August 20, 2010
why bother with politics?
I was asked what motivates Me to stand for the nsw senate COLUMN k.
Meg Explained, " 1. It was that the stimulus money was not given to long term unemployed. That was so unfair.
2. When I sat in a cafe and saw an older woman stealing lettuce and foodscraps from a vacated table.
I bought her a lunch, but I know I didn't do enough, and I know why she was desperate. Even though the pension has been increased,
the cost of affordable housing has increased at a higher rate.Landlords of boarding houses raised their rents so much that pensioners are left with about $30.00 a week to feed themselves.Cheap rental flats are now almost impossible to find. We must fund more public housing, and assist those who stay in their own homes. The stimulus money should have been spent on housing, in particular, social housing. many of hte free standing housing commission homes could be rebuilt as a block of four flats, and giving more people low cost housing. There are many others to be addressed,including climate change, transport and infrastructure, health and education.
:
Both Meg and June are ex Democrats, now independents, and both are concerned for the future of Australia. "We call ourselves the 2 OWLS - 2
older,wiser ladies" Meg said yesterday. You can see our pictures on our blog called Http://megansampson.blogspot.com and on twitter and facebook as both meg4sensampson and Megamoneybox.Meg Sampson stood for Cunningham in 1990 and almost won the seat, missing by
only 1.5%. Both Meg and June have ben interested in Politics for over 30 years, and June is showing her support as a 2nd on the ticket. They are both on low incomes, and therefor have no budget for advertising etc. They have directed the AEC to do a 3 way split ticket, equally between Labor,Liberal and the greens.
Current concerns:Meg says "Gilllard and Swan have painted themselves into a corner, with the Miners RSPT/PRRT. They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given the
country more tax income. Instead they did a classic "Pattern Bargaining" technique. Pick a vulnerable company or sector, get an agreement, then take that agreement to others as a blueprint. . goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com to read more. So what sector will be next? Tax on churches and charities?
The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against labor will translate into defeat. (except for the green vote and swap for 2nd preferences. even so, the greens seem to be taking labor ground rather than liberal national party) Right now we have an angry electorate. especially in the over 65 yrs, ie 20% of the voters. These voters are usually very reticent in changing sides, but right now they are rebelling, like teenagers.
Meg commented, "Everywhere we go on the campaign hustings, older people are now much more vocal. 20 years ago they were loyal, and reluctant to discuss how they would vote. 20 years ago they stuck to their class roots. But not now.
Labor has destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long
term unemployed!) Labor abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (yet still announced another talkfest!) They oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle.. PLUS labor condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions! Some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre. That won't be forgotten by every P and C forget the waste, when they are asked again to raise funds for school equipment.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. (over 105,000 people are
homeless each night) We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars.
Now Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one! If they've got an old bomb, it's because
they can't afford a new one! Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet. Labor
has abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the Liberals are the new Labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to
use a natural gas heater because it's not renewable. so Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate.Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K in the senate, the AEC (The Australian Electoral office) will do a 3 way split ticket,
so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that there is no need for pamphlets! The Australian Electoral office will print a booklet with all the preferences and it will
be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste! do the right thing, make up your own mind and
refuse a pamphlet! Let's stop the Santa Claus spending! Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged. This is your opportunity to get it right".
Ph 0432885510 / 02 42 285774 Authorised by Megan Sampson Silent elector address, Wollongong NSW
email msmegansampson@gmail.com and Http://Megansampson.blogspot.com
blog at http//:megansampson.blogspot.com twitter as meg4sensampson or Megansampson and Megamoney, youtube as megamoneybox and facebook as megan sampson
Meg Explained, " 1. It was that the stimulus money was not given to long term unemployed. That was so unfair.
2. When I sat in a cafe and saw an older woman stealing lettuce and foodscraps from a vacated table.
I bought her a lunch, but I know I didn't do enough, and I know why she was desperate. Even though the pension has been increased,
the cost of affordable housing has increased at a higher rate.Landlords of boarding houses raised their rents so much that pensioners are left with about $30.00 a week to feed themselves.Cheap rental flats are now almost impossible to find. We must fund more public housing, and assist those who stay in their own homes. The stimulus money should have been spent on housing, in particular, social housing. many of hte free standing housing commission homes could be rebuilt as a block of four flats, and giving more people low cost housing. There are many others to be addressed,including climate change, transport and infrastructure, health and education.
:
Both Meg and June are ex Democrats, now independents, and both are concerned for the future of Australia. "We call ourselves the 2 OWLS - 2
older,wiser ladies" Meg said yesterday. You can see our pictures on our blog called Http://megansampson.blogspot.com and on twitter and facebook as both meg4sensampson and Megamoneybox.Meg Sampson stood for Cunningham in 1990 and almost won the seat, missing by
only 1.5%. Both Meg and June have ben interested in Politics for over 30 years, and June is showing her support as a 2nd on the ticket. They are both on low incomes, and therefor have no budget for advertising etc. They have directed the AEC to do a 3 way split ticket, equally between Labor,Liberal and the greens.
Current concerns:Meg says "Gilllard and Swan have painted themselves into a corner, with the Miners RSPT/PRRT. They should have raised the royalties or simply just removed some of the tax deductions. That would then have given the
country more tax income. Instead they did a classic "Pattern Bargaining" technique. Pick a vulnerable company or sector, get an agreement, then take that agreement to others as a blueprint. . goto my http://noresourcetax.blogspot.com to read more. So what sector will be next? Tax on churches and charities?
The election will be 21.08.10, and just a 2.5% swing against labor will translate into defeat. (except for the green vote and swap for 2nd preferences. even so, the greens seem to be taking labor ground rather than liberal national party) Right now we have an angry electorate. especially in the over 65 yrs, ie 20% of the voters. These voters are usually very reticent in changing sides, but right now they are rebelling, like teenagers.
Meg commented, "Everywhere we go on the campaign hustings, older people are now much more vocal. 20 years ago they were loyal, and reluctant to discuss how they would vote. 20 years ago they stuck to their class roots. But not now.
Labor has destabilised the country, (our stable reputation) they have lost the basic Aussie view of fairness, (no stimulus was given to the long
term unemployed!) Labor abandoned the high moral ground on climate change, (yet still announced another talkfest!) They oversaw 4 deaths and more fires in insulation debacle.. PLUS labor condoned a total rip -off in the schools funding... with tuck shops the size of cubby houses and most priced like marijuana mansions! Some costed at $25,000 per sq metre instead of $1,000.00 per sq metre. That won't be forgotten by every P and C forget the waste, when they are asked again to raise funds for school equipment.
Our retirees, superannuates and pensioners will struggle to pay higher electricity costs, and find affordable housing. (over 105,000 people are
homeless each night) We are selling off our houses and farms to overseas owners, while our rising homeless live in their old cars.
Now Labor will even buy back your old car for $2,000.00 but ONLY if you can afford a new one! If they've got an old bomb, it's because
they can't afford a new one! Pensioners will soon be living in their garages or old cars while they rent out the house. Just to make ends meet. Labor
has abandoned all it stood for. Labor is the new Liberals, the Liberals are the new Labor and the greens will be so purist that no one will be able to
use a natural gas heater because it's not renewable. so Vote for Independents first- and for us in Column K in the senate.Then for your other choice. If you simply tick the box for Column K in the senate, the AEC (The Australian Electoral office) will do a 3 way split ticket,
so your vote won't be wasted.
Don't forget that there is no need for pamphlets! The Australian Electoral office will print a booklet with all the preferences and it will
be in the voting booth. Just look at how much paper (and trees) the so-called Green parties will waste! do the right thing, make up your own mind and
refuse a pamphlet! Let's stop the Santa Claus spending! Let's look after our country and it's small businesses, it's poor and the disadvantaged. This is your opportunity to get it right".
Ph 0432885510 / 02 42 285774 Authorised by Megan Sampson Silent elector address, Wollongong NSW
email msmegansampson@gmail.com and Http://Megansampson.blogspot.com
blog at http//:megansampson.blogspot.com twitter as meg4sensampson or Megansampson and Megamoney, youtube as megamoneybox and facebook as megan sampson
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
so the greens accept huge UNION donations!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Greens Bob Brown talk at the Press club today
Bob Brown spoke today at the national press club, and emphasised his plan to tax the miners and use that money for education and other causes.
The chances that the greens will hold the balance of power in the senate after Saturday 21.8.10 is very high, and the MRRT/Prrt will be revitalised. He gave the undertaking that he will try to take it further than Julia Gillard, and certainly seems determined.
Meg critised the greens today in saying that: the greens are not sticking to their green platform. They have acccepted donations from the unions which means they are now tied to the unions' demands.
" they haven't even stopped the over- use of electricity in city office blocks at night. All they had to do was to stop or reduce the amounts claimable on tax by 50%. Businesses have been able to claim electricity costs on their tax returns, and
that means that the taxpayer has been funding this shocking waste".
She added,
"1. The Greens have not stopped pamphlets in letterboxes,(they are delivering their own electoral material)
2. The Greens are still going to hand out at polling booths despite knowing that the electoral office
attaches a booklet in the polling booth with all the preferences directed by all parties and groups
3. They have had 3 years to negotiate with labor for a better outcome for climate change and didn't do it.
4. The greens have accepted large donations from unions,(I thought he said 3 million?) despite Bob Brown's pontification that all donations should not be allowed. The federal election is already funded by $2.30 for every vote over the minimum 4% and the greens and the other big parties, will be given that money, as well as having been given donations.
Surely they should have to repay to the government,the donation amount. But I cant see that ever getting past the senate.. they all have their own self interest to protect, rather than the interest of the voters.
5. If the greens do win the balance of power in the senate, it is likely that there will be a double dissolution within 18 months.
Greens Bob Brown talk at the Press club today
Bob Brown spoke today at the national press club, and emphasised his plan to tax the miners and use that money for education and other causes.
The chances that the greens will hold the balance of power in the senate after Saturday 21.8.10 is very high, and the MRRT/Prrt will be revitalised. He gave the undertaking that he will try to take it further than Julia Gillard, and certainly seems determined.
Meg critised the greens today in saying that: the greens are not sticking to their green platform. They have acccepted donations from the unions which means they are now tied to the unions' demands.
" they haven't even stopped the over- use of electricity in city office blocks at night. All they had to do was to stop or reduce the amounts claimable on tax by 50%. Businesses have been able to claim electricity costs on their tax returns, and
that means that the taxpayer has been funding this shocking waste".
She added,
"1. The Greens have not stopped pamphlets in letterboxes,(they are delivering their own electoral material)
2. The Greens are still going to hand out at polling booths despite knowing that the electoral office
attaches a booklet in the polling booth with all the preferences directed by all parties and groups
3. They have had 3 years to negotiate with labor for a better outcome for climate change and didn't do it.
4. The greens have accepted large donations from unions,(I thought he said 3 million?) despite Bob Brown's pontification that all donations should not be allowed. The federal election is already funded by $2.30 for every vote over the minimum 4% and the greens and the other big parties, will be given that money, as well as having been given donations.
Surely they should have to repay to the government,the donation amount. But I cant see that ever getting past the senate.. they all have their own self interest to protect, rather than the interest of the voters.
5. If the greens do win the balance of power in the senate, it is likely that there will be a double dissolution within 18 months.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
re Sedition laws-- not old and outdated.
re Sedition laws: Not old or outdated..
Australian sedition law is the area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.Effectively defunct for nearly half a century, these laws returned to public notice in 2005 when changes were included in an Anti-terrorism Bill announced by Prime Minister Howard prior to a "counter-terrorism summit" of the Council of Australian Governments on September 27.
The Bill was introduced on November 3 and passed into law on December 6, 2005 after government amendments adding some protection for the reporting of news and matters of public interest were introduced in response to community pressure. The changed laws are to be reviewed in 2006.
Early prosecutions for sedition in Australia include:
the conviction of Henry Seekamp for seditious libel over the Eureka Rebellion in 1854; (how amazing that Julia Gillard is standing in the seat of Lalor Victoria- named after Peter Lalor the Eukeka Hero!)
the conviction of 13 trade union leaders of the 1891 Australian shearers' strike for sedition and conspiracy; and
the action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike.
During the First World War Sedition laws were used against those who opposed conscription and war, in particular the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia [1]. In 1916 members of the IWW in Perth were charged with sedition including 83 year old Montague Miller, known as the grand old man of the labour movement. Miller was released after serving a few weeks of his sentence but was re-arrested in 1917 in Sydney at the age of 84 and sentenced to six months jail with hard labour at Long Bay Gaol on the charge of belonging to an unlawful association [2].
The Sydney Twelve were all charged and convicted with various offences including sedition.
ref wikpedia.
Australian sedition law is the area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.Effectively defunct for nearly half a century, these laws returned to public notice in 2005 when changes were included in an Anti-terrorism Bill announced by Prime Minister Howard prior to a "counter-terrorism summit" of the Council of Australian Governments on September 27.
The Bill was introduced on November 3 and passed into law on December 6, 2005 after government amendments adding some protection for the reporting of news and matters of public interest were introduced in response to community pressure. The changed laws are to be reviewed in 2006.
Early prosecutions for sedition in Australia include:
the conviction of Henry Seekamp for seditious libel over the Eureka Rebellion in 1854; (how amazing that Julia Gillard is standing in the seat of Lalor Victoria- named after Peter Lalor the Eukeka Hero!)
the conviction of 13 trade union leaders of the 1891 Australian shearers' strike for sedition and conspiracy; and
the action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike.
During the First World War Sedition laws were used against those who opposed conscription and war, in particular the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia [1]. In 1916 members of the IWW in Perth were charged with sedition including 83 year old Montague Miller, known as the grand old man of the labour movement. Miller was released after serving a few weeks of his sentence but was re-arrested in 1917 in Sydney at the age of 84 and sentenced to six months jail with hard labour at Long Bay Gaol on the charge of belonging to an unlawful association [2].
The Sydney Twelve were all charged and convicted with various offences including sedition.
ref wikpedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)