Gillard red-faced after calling WikiLeaks 'illegal'

7 Dec 2010, 2:05 pm   -   Source: AAP
23 Comments
Share This
+ Comment
23

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been left floundering after she labelled the actions of the WikiLeaks 'illegal', but couldn't say how.

RELATED

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been slammed for labelling the actions of the WikiLeaks website and its founder Julian Assange 'illegal', as the slow but steady publication of classified documents continues.

Ms Gillard has described the website as "illegal" but when directly asked what Australian laws it was breaking, she was unable to identify any.

"The foundation stone of it is an illegal act," Ms Gillard told reporters on Tuesday.

The "foundation stone" was the leaking of the documents to the website, not the publishing of the cables.

"It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks, if there had not been an illegal act undertaken," Ms Gillard said.

It has been widely reported the man behind previous leaks of classified documents, Private Bradley Manning, is likely responsible for this latest leak of more than 250,000 classified documents from the United States State Department.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis chastised Ms Gillard for her "clumsy" language on the issue.

"As far as I can see he (Mr Assange) hasn't broken any Australian law," he told Sky News.

"Nor does it appear he has broken any American laws."

Unrelated Interpol charges

In an unrelated matter Mr Assange is wanted by Interpol in relation to allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

This charge has been vigorously denied by the former hacker turned activist.

Mr Assange is expected to soon talk to Scotland Yard.

"I can't disclose his whereabouts but he certainly can be contacted through us and ... we are having that communication with the police at present," Jennifer Robinson, one of Mr Assange's legal team, told ABC Television.

"As we have maintained the entire time and as demonstrated by his numerous voluntary offers for co-operation with Swedish prosecuting authorities, he is very keen to clear his name," Ms Robinson said.

The controversial website was still being supported by a Swiss server on Tuesday after being dumped by previous server Amazon because of legal concerns.

Late Tuesday morning it had published 913 of a promised 251,287 cables.

The latest published cables relating to Australia name some critical US infrastructure based in Sydney and Victoria.

A Victorian mine that produces metallurgical grade nickel and a Melbourne-based company that produces snake antivenom were named in the cable.


Follow us on:
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Your Comments

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10

TRUTH

robert - from NEWCASTLE, 1 year

Who does Julia Gillard think that she is that she can bypass parliament and declare something to be illegal! Lookout Australia you ain't seen nothing yet. Think about this! Our politicians are currently trying to condemn a man who published THIER OWN WORDS under the belief of democracy and freedom of speech, and yet all they are really doing is showing everyone what TOOLS they are! After all this has died down they will still be there cloaked in secrecy and promoting thier own agenda.

TRUTH

robert - from NEWCASTLE, 1 year

I think the main problem here is that Julian Assange is'nt a girl! If he would have been no one would have dared condem him for fear of being labelled a sexist. Could you imagine America (sorry sweden) bringing up sex charges on a female! The worst thing that julian has got going for him is the fact that he is a white male! You were condemned before you released wikileaks.

TRUTH

robert - from NEWCASTLE, 1 year

I can't believe that people like Ian McFaden and Mal exist! First of all it is NOT gillards sole right to classify anything as being legal or illegal! Are not we "SUPPOSED" to be in a democracy?(OH I FORGOT STUPID ME!) As far as having a law degree goes, if it does give you that right I'll have to buy myself one! This whole situation is like watching a PUPPET SHOW where the PUPPETS are rebelling against the audience!

Assange guilty of what?

Mark Rees - from Brisbane, 1 year

 Do your research into US & Australian law before you post such rubbish.

head shaking

greg - from maitland, 1 year

Australian primeministers and the whole government is firmly in americas trailer whatever they say is backed up automatically by us lapdogs the general public hates american policies except our pollies

gross misconduct?

sally - from mount barker, adelaide, 1 year

WHO IS in fact is engaging in gross misconduct? the messenger? HE IS PASSING on the received information that reveals gross misconduct of the U.S.A..... this is another example of a gutless "bought and paid for "prime minister of Australia. MS GILLIARD WILL FIND OUT WHAT WE THINK OF HER CONDUCT AT THE NEXT POLLS. WHY isn't ms GILLIARD pointing out the collection of credit card and DNA order given by ms Clinton to diplomatic staff as GROSS MISCONDUCT!!!!!!!!!!

Incompetent

AlPal11 - from Melbourne, 1 year

What incredible clangers for a person holding a law degree. How can anyone have any confidence that Gillard will ever become a capable political leader? Rusted on Labor voters are becoming an endangered species. Ms G, you have lost my vote forever.

Mister

David Evans - from Taree, 1 year

ooo bloody ray for Julian Assange. Our politicians and ambassadors worldwide are being exposed for what they are and that is two timers. They say what they think needs to be said to get a pat on the back from the world's most dangerous country---- the USA. and as for Kevin Rudd, it's a pity that he didn't get his head chopped off instead of just a stab in the back.

What is "crime"?

James Wilson - from Brisbane, 1 year

At law there's a difference between "crime" and other illegality. A "crime" is something quite serious which attracts the possibility of incarceration. For all those people who are calling Assange a "criminal", you are alleging he has committed a "crime" but you aren't pointing out which part of the relevant Criminal Code he has breached. He may have broken a law but in all likelihood this would be a civil law and would not attract a custodial sentence or revocation of a passport.

Title

Name - from Location, 1 year

Just because something isn't "illegal" doesn't make it immoral or wrong on other levels. The people that stamp things as Secret are repeatedly told they will go to federal prison if they disclose information and to protect it with their lives. What kind of a slap in the face is that to the people who have unconditionally sworn to protect such information (regardless of content) and how long can we expect them to continue to do so before that very system breaks down from thorns like this?

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10

Join the Discussion

Name
City / Suburb E.g. Artarmon, Sydney
Title
Comment
You have characters remaining.
Validation
What's this?
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
All submitted comments become the property of SBS. They are moderated, so we reserve the right to edit comments and remove HTML tags. Not all submitted comments will be published. Publication does not mean we endorse the opinions expressed. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.