How are they allowed to blatantly lie?
* Real News = Literally Made-up “News” and Lies
* Honest Views = Manufactured Views.
Why are we so weak on holding journalism to bare minimum standards? This is false advertising.
Yeah, and they are manufactured.
They don’t actually believe the “views” they claim.
Just like how FOX news hosts were terrified behind the scenes of Trump’s presidency and actions on J6, but they share the opposite “views” live on air.
Same shit here. They no doubt all believe in climate change and they know trickle down economics is a laughable joke, they knows Libs splash cash and crash the economy compared to Labor, but their “views” are not in fact those.
I'm still amused that NBCU/Comcast, the owners of the Sky Group, the actual owners of Sky News, is still not pulling out the Sky News brand from the Murdoch's in Australia. lol
I've seen some of the worst ever journalism from sky news, my favourite was when various liberal politicians were complaining about somebody and the article didn't mention who the person was. I assume from context it was a Labor member possibly a minister but it wasn't clear and im sorry but I dont know all of Labor ministers let alone all their backbenchers and it would have really helped to have that context
I like when they were discussing labor bringing euthanasia (was actually voluntary assisted death for critically ill patients). Bringing in their resident expert.... A Catholic priest. Ridiculous.
My favourite was when the liberals lost NSW and the Muppet at the desk was shouting "we don't want labor". Saying how they needed to be more conservative and shit. I just hope to see more coping from them in coming years.
Is it just me or is the way this whole Assange thing played out just the reverse of Bart vs Australia?
"The state department wants to bring you to Saipan, and give you one kick up the bum, through the fence".
not a thing, even when some coalition members were speaking out for Assange, they did nada. Which is kinda inline with their 'do whatever US says' approach to foreign policy', which Labor have countered with 'we'll do whatever US asks, but actually ask for something in return'.
Its deeply annoying how little Australians seem to understand, about how royally we screw ourselves in bilateral relations with America. Compare what we get, with allies that're also crucial to American geopolitics (like Germany, or Israel). Germany is key to American opposition to Russia. Israel, to hegemony in the Middle East. Australia, to the China containment strat Rudd and Obama got going (+Pine Gap). But we pay them out the wazoo (via AUKUS and other arms deals), to serve their interests, above ours.
Maybe the comparison with Germany, Israel, is a bit dumb, given their relative insecurity of their regions, but if we go down the, 'invest in war rather than peace' route, we too could share an insecure future.
AUKUS sounds expensive because they calculated the cost for the entire program and reported its present value terms, but stretching over decades its just another big ticket program like the F-35.
Also if you want to have arms, you either buy from someone, or build it yourself. Australia doesn't have the domestic capability to wholly build anything more than infantry fighting vehicles, so that means looking to others to supply those assets.
AUKUS is expensive, no matter how its spun. F-35s are dumb in the Australian context as well, if they're really to defend such a big landmass. Really though, American arms companies might have the worst record? When it comes to rorting governments, including America itself, that order arms.
Each product is a constant mess of faulty parts that only the manufacturer can replace. There has to be better ways to arm a military, then getting the worst of both worlds, in public-private business deals. That too often become a black hole of spending, well beyond initial estimations.
The reason I say we should be investing in peace. Is we don't have an imminent potential military threat like other regions do. That doesn't mean to not invest in defensive capabilities, but its a radical different prospect to countries next to Russia. And by spending like we expect a future war, we engage in a security dilemma, which signals to other countries they need to spend more on militarisation too.
All this increase in defense spending is driven by the realist IR theory, that suggests a rising power, will inevitably be a threat, despite how differently China has acted as a global power compared to its predecessors (I don't say this as a sinophile, just stating facts).
China have been very in on increasing multilateral trade via belt and road and such. Exerting influence via trade, rather than invasion - Australia can learn from this. I think there's a lot to be said for how multilateral economic frameworks can incentivise peace, while increasing prosperity. It worked for the EU, where wars had been pretty bad previous to such deals.
Australia's probably never going to be able to compete with the world in hard power, not to any significant extent. What we have is natural resources in abundance. Extending trade via South East asia, building trains from Melton to Beijing. Can give Australia more soft power in its immediate region.
If we remember back to WW2, the last time Australia was really threatened. That was because countries between Australia and Japan were too weak to defend themselves. With a stronger region, If ASEAN could be an EU light, taking the EU's best qualities (without the technocratic neoliberalism) - this is the way to invest in peace.
But the approach outlined above, is completely different to how the dorks in DFAT see things, where they essentially ape the American, cold war era understanding of defense and state craft. Ya know, the strategy that's been an unmitigated disaster for much of the world.
Most of your points are invalid.
Australia doesn’t have to defend its entire landmass, it needs to protect its Defended Assets (airstrips, ports, urban centres etc) which makes Combat Air Patrols from 5th Generation Fighters extremely relevant.
You’re also saying that Australia should not contribute to an arms race, as if purchasing submarines to defend ourselves will speed up what is already the largest arms race since WW2 occurring in Asia. However, like 1930’s Australia you would also have us secure our peace through healthy trade like we did selling iron to Japan? How did that turn out?
ASEAN wasn’t strong enough in WW2 to hinder Japan’s rapid push south? Well, perhaps not ASEAN but you’re forgetting the fact there were European and American powers established in SE Asia that were meant to do exactly this, Singapore and Phillipines were meant to contain Japan and were destroyed. We cannot rely on others do defend ourselves.
[F-35s](https://johnmenadue.com/michael-p-hughes-what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-lockheed-martins-joint-strike-fighter/) are shit. US arms manufactures are often shit, because they're rarely punished for their failures. Just given bigger budgets
[Range](https://johnmenadue.com/we-should-ask-for-a-refund-on-the-f-35-fighter-planes-not-buy-more/) in aircraft is actually useful when defending a giant country. It opens up so much more tactically to have range (same reason many back AUKUS). The issues Aus has had with f-35s are well [storied](https://johnmenadue.com/problems-with-new-f-35-fighter-planes-shouldnt-fly-under-the-radar-canberra-times-sep-1-2020/), should give any pause regarding AUKUS.
China's reaction to the AUKUS announcement (accusing AUKUS nations of fueling an arms race) gives the impression that, yes, a multination investment in nuclear subs with offensive capabilities suited to spying in Chinese waters, does contribute to the security dilemma. That's insane to deny. Its as textbook security dilemma as its gets.
Your last para re '1930s ASEAN', about rival competing colonial empires, is the literal opposite to what I'm suggesting in multilateral frameworks. Which makes me wonder if you've begun to understand my point...
**Fuck the hub and spoke model of empires having heaps of bilateral relations** -as Asia is heavily stratified by. That is the approach which has failed through history, and I'm providing clear examples here of how multilateral frameworks have reversed this tide previously (EU). This isn't a radical [new idea](https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/amid-alarming-rise-conflict-multilateralism-only-answer) in international relations. The radical thing is to keep doing what has historically led to war and devastation.
World wars were preceded by alliances, bilateral relations. The same sort of schisming we're seeing now in relation to Russian and American belligerence globally. What is the antidote to that? Multilateral relations.
We have to rely on others to defend ourselves. our whole military strat relies on the US, despite its instability. And all this building arms is in anticipation of warring with *our largest trading partner*. We don't have the resource to defend ourselves, we have to find the right way of negotiating relations with neighbours, to make war less probable.
Your F-35 reference is from 2017 and is completely stale. F-35 in reality is the best 5th Generation Fighter in the world and is incompatible, hence why almost all NATO allies are now switching.
Range is irrelevant when a fleet of Air-to-Air Refuel Tankers are kept (KC-30A), that ensures persistent air cover and “range” through Australia and our sphere.
Why would you base Australia’s assessment on AUKUS acquired Virginia SSN on your perceptions of a Jet Fighter?
Ukraine tried to negotiate its way to Peace and after the first weeks of the 2022 invasion, in fact so do all countries before they are subjugated, occupied, embargoed, etc. “Surrender” is not the sort of negotiation that is gameplan for the future. Australia **can** defend itself, if given the means to do so; I.e force multipliers such as a weapon that sits on the bottom of the ocean for months without detection to then destroy a high value surface combatant critical to sustaining a task group…
Australia acquiring a small number of pre-existing submarines is unlikely to contribute anything more that what is already shared between Australia and the USA anyway, don’t you think?
> AUKUS is expensive, no matter how its spun. F-35s are dumb in the Australian context as well, if they're really to defend such a big landmass.
Please go on and tell me what a better alternative is? What makes any alternative platform better than the F-35? Lets start with that and then we can discuss the rest of your comment.
> Exerting influence via trade, rather than invasion - Australia can learn from this. I
We heard it all before with Russia too, integrate Russia closely, make them reliant on revenue from the oil and gas they send us, they won't do anything to disrupt that.
The US led West is just the US + Vassals. A small blessing is that we are not physically occupied to the degree of Germany, South Korea, and japan.
It's cute that you think the US has "allies," though
Were you on the side of freedom during Afghanistan, Iraq, lybia, Syria? The resource rich northern region of Syria is still occupied by the US.
The Russia Ukraine conflict is tragic, as are all wars, but Russia still has more reason to be there than the US has/had to be in any of those mentioned above.
Yes, never let the facts get in the way of your worldview.
And the finishing move ,the whataboutism card, the true sign you have no ability to defend your position, well played.
As a parting gift 🎁 on your cake day, I'll leave you this. [it's my birthday 🎂](https://youtu.be/-I97NOpkzSw?si=f889YL07rASpkRSo)
Not as a government , but Bridget Archer is a co-chair of the [Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group](https://www.assangecampaign.org.au/bring-julian-home-campaign/) some 14 other LNP, LP and Nationals MPs were part of that group. Funny enough One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is part of the group as well as UAP's Ralph Babet. Most independents and all Greens were on board too.
Labor didn't do anything the first time around, including when Rudd was PM for his second time.
Not sure why Rudd being present now is such a big deal, given he had much more authority back when this case was 'hot'.
It requires the Attorney General to sign off on it (or a delegate) and the AG has the authority to tell the Department that he runs to end the prosecution. Once the person has been found guilty, now it's out of his hands about sentencing.
Good point, it doesn’t pay to be a whistleblower, despite the alleged legislative protections. Albo has bern asked & asked to amend the whistleblower law but does nothing. Neither side of politics supports whistleblowers, they just don’t want their corruption advertised. The prosecution of both McBride & Julian will only succeed in putting good people off reporting which is exactly what the elite want.
https://preview.redd.it/bklfl18tlw8d1.jpeg?width=1166&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18e4b8e201f46517c370d62f1f40292e386a9f05
Well this is the Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister. The majority of coalition MPs did nothing now and while they were in power.
I mean it shouldn't be needed to describe diplomacy as 'behind the scenes' but unfortunately the way most people understand diplomacy is hot takes and grandstanding.
Bizarre how many times I've seen someone say the government isn't doing anything about some international thing outside Australia's borders, when its clear they'll be having diplomatic conversations behind the scenes.
By grandstanding, you mean stuff like Rudd making sure he's caught on camera next to Assange?
Is that just the first time he's met him, or is it the first time he's spoken to him, too?
I had to watch the video 3 times to spot Rudd, so not sure how much trouble he's gone to 'make sure' there.
Also Rudd is Australia's ambassador to the USA so yeah he's probably put the majority of the work in on the diplomacy on this.
It very well be be the first time they've met, given Julian has been in prison IN THE UK for a while now...
My first thought on this was how will this go down in Trump world when he's been indicted for some similar offences? My guess is the right wing nuts will be squealing over this
Legally the cases are extremely unrelated. The laws that were broken and how they are being prosecuted are just different.
In the same way driving with out a license is a crime and refusing to be pulled over by the police is crime. both similar crimes because they involve cars each crime can be wildly different in how they are prosecuted.
But in the public eye i think the difference will probably get missed.
I've heard a lot about Julian being released from the U.S. after pleading guilty, but since he's free here in Australia, what exactly was his punishment for breaching a law so difficult to cross that even the terrorist ex-president still hasn't been charged over? Was he punished at all? Or did they just record a guilty verdict and catapult him over the pacific and wash their hands of him?
That article is wrong:
> Except that Shawn Henry, the head of the company CrowdStrike hired by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign (while keeping the FBI away) to examine the DNC servers declared under oath to the House Intelligence Committee that no evidence of a hack was discovered. “It appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left,” Henry told the committee.
... except that if it's been "set up to be exfiltrated", then that's been done by hackers; i.e. it's been hacked.
The lack of evidence of exfiltration just comes down to most organisations having shitty exfiltration controls/logging.
It's a bit like coming home and finding your front door kicked in; without cameras inside the house you don't know if they've tampered with or copied anything. For all you know, you're going to get a photograph in the mail in a week's time of your toothbrush sticking out of someone's arse....
That's a fair point, and it's not discussed enough in that article. [Here is a deeper investigation](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html#). The comments add a lot more context.
always funny how assange really loves a politician when they are doing what he wants
if they don't... then he loves a good meddling
edit: ah the good old lots of downvotes but no responses to try and refute the comment, classic for this sub, the fact is that assange isn't the whistleblower everyone makes him out to be... he picks and chooses what he does on personal grudges against specific politicians
I mean if the most powerful government in world history with the most powerful military in world history with the most effective crime covering up abilities in world history was seeking to have me arrested and handed over to them for exposing that they knowingly and deliberately killed innocent civilians I'd probably hide in a room for years too, but that's just me I guess.
Real news honest views? Fuck off sky news you aren't fooling anybody with that slogan
How are they allowed to blatantly lie? * Real News = Literally Made-up “News” and Lies * Honest Views = Manufactured Views. Why are we so weak on holding journalism to bare minimum standards? This is false advertising.
by 'views' they mean their opinions, not the number of views they get.
Yeah, and they are manufactured. They don’t actually believe the “views” they claim. Just like how FOX news hosts were terrified behind the scenes of Trump’s presidency and actions on J6, but they share the opposite “views” live on air. Same shit here. They no doubt all believe in climate change and they know trickle down economics is a laughable joke, they knows Libs splash cash and crash the economy compared to Labor, but their “views” are not in fact those.
And just to complete the circle, fox and sky are the same, Murdoch press.
I'm still amused that NBCU/Comcast, the owners of the Sky Group, the actual owners of Sky News, is still not pulling out the Sky News brand from the Murdoch's in Australia. lol
I've seen some of the worst ever journalism from sky news, my favourite was when various liberal politicians were complaining about somebody and the article didn't mention who the person was. I assume from context it was a Labor member possibly a minister but it wasn't clear and im sorry but I dont know all of Labor ministers let alone all their backbenchers and it would have really helped to have that context
I like when they were discussing labor bringing euthanasia (was actually voluntary assisted death for critically ill patients). Bringing in their resident expert.... A Catholic priest. Ridiculous.
My favourite was when the liberals lost NSW and the Muppet at the desk was shouting "we don't want labor". Saying how they needed to be more conservative and shit. I just hope to see more coping from them in coming years.
When a company has to say "we don't lie" you can be sure they do 😅
Oh but it is!
Is it just me or is the way this whole Assange thing played out just the reverse of Bart vs Australia? "The state department wants to bring you to Saipan, and give you one kick up the bum, through the fence".
I believe it's a wing tip
Prime opportunity for him to write don't step on me on his arse
Can we not promote the sitcom Sky News by sharing their anything?
Did the coalition do anything to progress or support this case?
According to Geoffrey Robertson they did sweet fa
not a thing, even when some coalition members were speaking out for Assange, they did nada. Which is kinda inline with their 'do whatever US says' approach to foreign policy', which Labor have countered with 'we'll do whatever US asks, but actually ask for something in return'. Its deeply annoying how little Australians seem to understand, about how royally we screw ourselves in bilateral relations with America. Compare what we get, with allies that're also crucial to American geopolitics (like Germany, or Israel). Germany is key to American opposition to Russia. Israel, to hegemony in the Middle East. Australia, to the China containment strat Rudd and Obama got going (+Pine Gap). But we pay them out the wazoo (via AUKUS and other arms deals), to serve their interests, above ours. Maybe the comparison with Germany, Israel, is a bit dumb, given their relative insecurity of their regions, but if we go down the, 'invest in war rather than peace' route, we too could share an insecure future.
AUKUS sounds expensive because they calculated the cost for the entire program and reported its present value terms, but stretching over decades its just another big ticket program like the F-35. Also if you want to have arms, you either buy from someone, or build it yourself. Australia doesn't have the domestic capability to wholly build anything more than infantry fighting vehicles, so that means looking to others to supply those assets.
AUKUS is expensive, no matter how its spun. F-35s are dumb in the Australian context as well, if they're really to defend such a big landmass. Really though, American arms companies might have the worst record? When it comes to rorting governments, including America itself, that order arms. Each product is a constant mess of faulty parts that only the manufacturer can replace. There has to be better ways to arm a military, then getting the worst of both worlds, in public-private business deals. That too often become a black hole of spending, well beyond initial estimations. The reason I say we should be investing in peace. Is we don't have an imminent potential military threat like other regions do. That doesn't mean to not invest in defensive capabilities, but its a radical different prospect to countries next to Russia. And by spending like we expect a future war, we engage in a security dilemma, which signals to other countries they need to spend more on militarisation too. All this increase in defense spending is driven by the realist IR theory, that suggests a rising power, will inevitably be a threat, despite how differently China has acted as a global power compared to its predecessors (I don't say this as a sinophile, just stating facts). China have been very in on increasing multilateral trade via belt and road and such. Exerting influence via trade, rather than invasion - Australia can learn from this. I think there's a lot to be said for how multilateral economic frameworks can incentivise peace, while increasing prosperity. It worked for the EU, where wars had been pretty bad previous to such deals. Australia's probably never going to be able to compete with the world in hard power, not to any significant extent. What we have is natural resources in abundance. Extending trade via South East asia, building trains from Melton to Beijing. Can give Australia more soft power in its immediate region. If we remember back to WW2, the last time Australia was really threatened. That was because countries between Australia and Japan were too weak to defend themselves. With a stronger region, If ASEAN could be an EU light, taking the EU's best qualities (without the technocratic neoliberalism) - this is the way to invest in peace. But the approach outlined above, is completely different to how the dorks in DFAT see things, where they essentially ape the American, cold war era understanding of defense and state craft. Ya know, the strategy that's been an unmitigated disaster for much of the world.
Most of your points are invalid. Australia doesn’t have to defend its entire landmass, it needs to protect its Defended Assets (airstrips, ports, urban centres etc) which makes Combat Air Patrols from 5th Generation Fighters extremely relevant. You’re also saying that Australia should not contribute to an arms race, as if purchasing submarines to defend ourselves will speed up what is already the largest arms race since WW2 occurring in Asia. However, like 1930’s Australia you would also have us secure our peace through healthy trade like we did selling iron to Japan? How did that turn out? ASEAN wasn’t strong enough in WW2 to hinder Japan’s rapid push south? Well, perhaps not ASEAN but you’re forgetting the fact there were European and American powers established in SE Asia that were meant to do exactly this, Singapore and Phillipines were meant to contain Japan and were destroyed. We cannot rely on others do defend ourselves.
[F-35s](https://johnmenadue.com/michael-p-hughes-what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-lockheed-martins-joint-strike-fighter/) are shit. US arms manufactures are often shit, because they're rarely punished for their failures. Just given bigger budgets [Range](https://johnmenadue.com/we-should-ask-for-a-refund-on-the-f-35-fighter-planes-not-buy-more/) in aircraft is actually useful when defending a giant country. It opens up so much more tactically to have range (same reason many back AUKUS). The issues Aus has had with f-35s are well [storied](https://johnmenadue.com/problems-with-new-f-35-fighter-planes-shouldnt-fly-under-the-radar-canberra-times-sep-1-2020/), should give any pause regarding AUKUS. China's reaction to the AUKUS announcement (accusing AUKUS nations of fueling an arms race) gives the impression that, yes, a multination investment in nuclear subs with offensive capabilities suited to spying in Chinese waters, does contribute to the security dilemma. That's insane to deny. Its as textbook security dilemma as its gets. Your last para re '1930s ASEAN', about rival competing colonial empires, is the literal opposite to what I'm suggesting in multilateral frameworks. Which makes me wonder if you've begun to understand my point... **Fuck the hub and spoke model of empires having heaps of bilateral relations** -as Asia is heavily stratified by. That is the approach which has failed through history, and I'm providing clear examples here of how multilateral frameworks have reversed this tide previously (EU). This isn't a radical [new idea](https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/amid-alarming-rise-conflict-multilateralism-only-answer) in international relations. The radical thing is to keep doing what has historically led to war and devastation. World wars were preceded by alliances, bilateral relations. The same sort of schisming we're seeing now in relation to Russian and American belligerence globally. What is the antidote to that? Multilateral relations. We have to rely on others to defend ourselves. our whole military strat relies on the US, despite its instability. And all this building arms is in anticipation of warring with *our largest trading partner*. We don't have the resource to defend ourselves, we have to find the right way of negotiating relations with neighbours, to make war less probable.
Your F-35 reference is from 2017 and is completely stale. F-35 in reality is the best 5th Generation Fighter in the world and is incompatible, hence why almost all NATO allies are now switching. Range is irrelevant when a fleet of Air-to-Air Refuel Tankers are kept (KC-30A), that ensures persistent air cover and “range” through Australia and our sphere. Why would you base Australia’s assessment on AUKUS acquired Virginia SSN on your perceptions of a Jet Fighter? Ukraine tried to negotiate its way to Peace and after the first weeks of the 2022 invasion, in fact so do all countries before they are subjugated, occupied, embargoed, etc. “Surrender” is not the sort of negotiation that is gameplan for the future. Australia **can** defend itself, if given the means to do so; I.e force multipliers such as a weapon that sits on the bottom of the ocean for months without detection to then destroy a high value surface combatant critical to sustaining a task group… Australia acquiring a small number of pre-existing submarines is unlikely to contribute anything more that what is already shared between Australia and the USA anyway, don’t you think?
> AUKUS is expensive, no matter how its spun. F-35s are dumb in the Australian context as well, if they're really to defend such a big landmass. Please go on and tell me what a better alternative is? What makes any alternative platform better than the F-35? Lets start with that and then we can discuss the rest of your comment. > Exerting influence via trade, rather than invasion - Australia can learn from this. I We heard it all before with Russia too, integrate Russia closely, make them reliant on revenue from the oil and gas they send us, they won't do anything to disrupt that.
The US led West is just the US + Vassals. A small blessing is that we are not physically occupied to the degree of Germany, South Korea, and japan. It's cute that you think the US has "allies," though
We have US Marines and US Air Force assets in NT, and there's also Pine Gap.
Was Niger a vassal state too?
A vassal to France, which in turn is a vassal to the US, so yeah, sure.
Nor physically occupied to the degree of Ukraine Pretty big fucking blessing if you ask me. It's nice to be on the side of freedom not fascism
Were you on the side of freedom during Afghanistan, Iraq, lybia, Syria? The resource rich northern region of Syria is still occupied by the US. The Russia Ukraine conflict is tragic, as are all wars, but Russia still has more reason to be there than the US has/had to be in any of those mentioned above.
There is zero reason for Russia to be anywhere but Russia Fuck off with your whataboutism
Yes, never let the facts get in the way of your worldview. And the finishing move ,the whataboutism card, the true sign you have no ability to defend your position, well played. As a parting gift 🎁 on your cake day, I'll leave you this. [it's my birthday 🎂](https://youtu.be/-I97NOpkzSw?si=f889YL07rASpkRSo)
No point arguing with someone making excuses for Russia
Not as a government , but Bridget Archer is a co-chair of the [Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group](https://www.assangecampaign.org.au/bring-julian-home-campaign/) some 14 other LNP, LP and Nationals MPs were part of that group. Funny enough One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is part of the group as well as UAP's Ralph Babet. Most independents and all Greens were on board too.
Labor didn't do anything the first time around, including when Rudd was PM for his second time. Not sure why Rudd being present now is such a big deal, given he had much more authority back when this case was 'hot'.
Don't forget they all prosecuted McBride for basically the same thing (exposing war crimes) just a couple of weeks ago.
That was the justice system, not the government.
It requires the Attorney General to sign off on it (or a delegate) and the AG has the authority to tell the Department that he runs to end the prosecution. Once the person has been found guilty, now it's out of his hands about sentencing.
Good point, it doesn’t pay to be a whistleblower, despite the alleged legislative protections. Albo has bern asked & asked to amend the whistleblower law but does nothing. Neither side of politics supports whistleblowers, they just don’t want their corruption advertised. The prosecution of both McBride & Julian will only succeed in putting good people off reporting which is exactly what the elite want.
Assange hadn't served 6 years in prison when Rudd was PM.
https://preview.redd.it/bklfl18tlw8d1.jpeg?width=1166&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18e4b8e201f46517c370d62f1f40292e386a9f05 Well this is the Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister. The majority of coalition MPs did nothing now and while they were in power.
Not sure I'd say that out loud in front of Penny Wong?
Tell the truth and get locked up. We see that a lot these days.
But has anyone asked how the potato feels about all this? I feel like we haven't heard from him at all today
theres a lotta clinton simps getting real mad this week, and i am fucking loving it lmao
Clinton was dogshit but this Assange did hand the election over to trump with that leak because he thought it’d get him a pardon
I'm loving it too. Say it loudly from the back: [Russiagate was a beat-up](https://consortiumnews.com/2021/07/17/luke-hardings-hard-sell/).
Well done kevin07. 👍🏻
Kevin~~07~~747
thank goodness. i was just thinking about assange randomly the other day. glad he is free at last!
Oh Look,.Kevin doing positive things. Queue Sky/Murdoch rage bait
It's a real testament to the skillful behind the scenes diplomacy of Albo and Rudd.
I mean it shouldn't be needed to describe diplomacy as 'behind the scenes' but unfortunately the way most people understand diplomacy is hot takes and grandstanding. Bizarre how many times I've seen someone say the government isn't doing anything about some international thing outside Australia's borders, when its clear they'll be having diplomatic conversations behind the scenes.
By grandstanding, you mean stuff like Rudd making sure he's caught on camera next to Assange? Is that just the first time he's met him, or is it the first time he's spoken to him, too?
I had to watch the video 3 times to spot Rudd, so not sure how much trouble he's gone to 'make sure' there. Also Rudd is Australia's ambassador to the USA so yeah he's probably put the majority of the work in on the diplomacy on this. It very well be be the first time they've met, given Julian has been in prison IN THE UK for a while now...
Does.it matter in this instance ?
My first thought on this was how will this go down in Trump world when he's been indicted for some similar offences? My guess is the right wing nuts will be squealing over this
The similarities of the offenses are extremely surface level. Not that that will stop the raving idiots
Legally the cases are extremely unrelated. The laws that were broken and how they are being prosecuted are just different. In the same way driving with out a license is a crime and refusing to be pulled over by the police is crime. both similar crimes because they involve cars each crime can be wildly different in how they are prosecuted. But in the public eye i think the difference will probably get missed.
White haired brothers lol
Didn't Kevin Rudd have a spell as foreign minister and briefly prime minister at the start of this mess?
It was pretty early on in the whole saga when Sweden were demanding extradition. Then things took a turn after 2013.
Man arrives at airport.......
Anyone notice how tall Julian Assange is.
SKY CHANNEL, WHERE NEWS GOES TO DIE
I've heard a lot about Julian being released from the U.S. after pleading guilty, but since he's free here in Australia, what exactly was his punishment for breaching a law so difficult to cross that even the terrorist ex-president still hasn't been charged over? Was he punished at all? Or did they just record a guilty verdict and catapult him over the pacific and wash their hands of him?
Easily my favourite sex offender and Russian asset!
[удалено]
[You're about a decade behind the times believing Russiagate](https://consortiumnews.com/2021/07/17/luke-hardings-hard-sell/).
That article is wrong: > Except that Shawn Henry, the head of the company CrowdStrike hired by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign (while keeping the FBI away) to examine the DNC servers declared under oath to the House Intelligence Committee that no evidence of a hack was discovered. “It appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left,” Henry told the committee. ... except that if it's been "set up to be exfiltrated", then that's been done by hackers; i.e. it's been hacked. The lack of evidence of exfiltration just comes down to most organisations having shitty exfiltration controls/logging. It's a bit like coming home and finding your front door kicked in; without cameras inside the house you don't know if they've tampered with or copied anything. For all you know, you're going to get a photograph in the mail in a week's time of your toothbrush sticking out of someone's arse....
That's a fair point, and it's not discussed enough in that article. [Here is a deeper investigation](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html#). The comments add a lot more context.
always funny how assange really loves a politician when they are doing what he wants if they don't... then he loves a good meddling edit: ah the good old lots of downvotes but no responses to try and refute the comment, classic for this sub, the fact is that assange isn't the whistleblower everyone makes him out to be... he picks and chooses what he does on personal grudges against specific politicians
God, Give us back Shifty Shellshock from the classic 90s nu metal band Crazytown and we'll swap you one Julian Assage. sincerely all Australians
I mean I'd personally prefer someone who exposes murder cover ups but that's just me I guess
He's was a hero once. He's a coward who hid in a room for as long as I can remember. He's a redundant old man now
I mean if the most powerful government in world history with the most powerful military in world history with the most effective crime covering up abilities in world history was seeking to have me arrested and handed over to them for exposing that they knowingly and deliberately killed innocent civilians I'd probably hide in a room for years too, but that's just me I guess.
Anything for Kevin to be in the limelight as usual. It’s all about Kevin
I think this is mostly about Assange, bro, and it is you making this all about your need to rag on Kevin.
Where's the part where it talks about Kevin? Is keven in the room with us right now? R U OK?
Lol Rudd is in the clip walking behind Assange, you can only see him for about 2 seconds the whole clip and I didn't see him the first time I watched.
Ah so he is! I didnt even see him lol.
You can hardly see him in the above video, so you just pulled that out of your ass.
yeah because this is the entire coverage that is going on
Delivers on this but nothing else. Fight me.
Nah,. I'll just give a down vote (and this comment) and forget you exist.
Ouch. Sick burn.