...

They have revealed American disdain for Britain's handling of the turbulent Helmand province in Afghanistan and passed on unflattering assessments of David Cameron and George Osborne.

"I personally want to convey to the government and the people of the United Kingdom both my deep respect and admiration for the extraordinary efforts and our regret if anything that was said by anyone suggested the contrary," she said.

While expressing her regret, she maintained that politicians, officials or advisers have to be able to speak to each other frankly and in confidence in order to govern effectively.

In Kabul, the leak of cables critical of the Afghan government and of President Hamid Karzai, who was described as weak and unfamiliar with nation-building, are a source of great anger and concern.

US diplomats fear the leaks may have caused irreparable damage to the Karzai regime, and have spent several days in a rearguard action trying to assure the Afghan government of its support and confidence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clinton-apologises-for-embarrassment-to-uk-2151053.html

Julia Gillard has, with no substantial grounds at all, repeatedly referred to Wikileaks and Assange's activities as "illegal." Whether or not the Wikileaks dump is "illegal" is far from certain. Even in the US, who is the primary victim if indeed any crime has been committed by Assange, the legality or otherwise of his actions remains unclear.

Australia has not been sinned against in the dump, but irrespective of that, in their desperation to assuage the USA Gillard and McClelland are casting about to find an offence, any offence, with which to charge Assange.

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. Our Attorney General and our Prime Minister have publicly committed to doing everything they can to assist the US in its pursuit of one of our citizens, a citizen who has now been threatened with death several times by several different figures, in that country.

This is really quite remarkable. Our government is supposed to protect its citizens, as it protects US citizens, from threats of death. After all, didn't we just go to great lengths to ensure that the convicted wife murderer Gabe Watson would not be returned to his homeland unless they first agreed not to kill him? Yet we'll hunt down one of our citizens who has not been charged with, let alone convicted of anything, and offer him up for assassination apparently without a qualm.

What a very special relationship indeed we have with the USA.

But what is breathtakingly alarming is that nobody in the mainstream media, and in government, seems to find it at all necessary to remark upon the fact that Assange's activities are considered by influential and senior figures in the USA and Canada to be deserving of death.

The death threats, the media, & the government's sychophantic pursuit of Julian Assange

meanwhile ..... in America ..... a sense of imperious entitlement .....

Afoot in America is an astonishing sense of imperious entitlement. People are told they can have it all - heck, that they deserve it all - and to hell with anyone who raises an objection. Rugged individualism is not enough; roughshod individualism is the new American ethos.

Now, what has this to say about WikiLeaks? Take a close look at many of the State Department cables and tell me how you would feel to be on the receiving end of roughshod American imperiousness. So what if we kidnap the wrong German citizen and torture him? Not only do we have no need to apologize: We'll even bully the German government into silence. And we can bully Spain too, if need be, to inhibit Spanish attempts to prosecute Americans for torture or murder. Need more information about the United Nations and its diplomats? Let's not only spy on them in traditional ways, but let's steal their passwords, their biometric data: Heck, let's even take DNA samples from them. If they complain, too bad: They shouldn't have taken a drink from the cup we offered them. And the list goes on: We'll even strike secret deals with Britain to hide our cluster bombs.

In these memos, it never seems to be America's fault. Being a loud and boorish and imperious American means never having contritely to say you're sorry. I got a reminder of that tonight at a local eatery; it seems many different peoples around the world get their reminders from their local American embassies.

Are we oblivious? Do we just not care? Neither question will matter if the resentments we breed overseas find their way to America's homeland.

Doubtless we'll be partying loudly and obnoxiously until the bitter end.

WikiLeaks and Our Boorish "In Your Face" Diplomacy

and, to keep us in-touch with 'reality' .... we take you to Canbra .....

by Crikey .....

Last week the Attorney-General wrote to "commercial media peak bodies like the Australian Press Council" asking for their help to put together voluntary arrangements that "would apply to the publication of sensitive national security and law enforcement matters, where inadvertent or pre-emptive reporting could endanger the life and safety of personnel or the public or could compromise that investigation or operation".

The arrangements "would not aim to hinder publication or suppress the publication of news" but "facilitate such reporting in a manner that avoids risk to life or safety or compromise of important investigations or operations".

Robert McClelland's letter referred to coverage of anti-terrorism raids in Melbourne in August 2009 but the timing reveals the true intent: to establish a protocol for reporting on material emerging from WikiLeaks's diplomatic cables. Indeed, McClelland himself made the link clear last week when he said that a "discussion might need to take place" between national security and law enforcement authorities and the media about publishing WikiLeaks material.

The peculiarity of McClelland's letter is that it is aimed at the exact sector of the media that, on current form, is least likely to provide detailed coverage of the WikiLeaks material. Outside the ABC, the Australian mainstream media's coverage of the WikiLeaks material has been threadbare, focused on trivia and lacking in analytical substance (and a refusal to link to external sources for the cables themselves). For comprehensive coverage and quality analysis, Australian readers have had to head to overseas websites like The New York Times and The Guardian, or read the work of bloggers with foreign policy expertise or an understanding of new media.

McClelland's letter is like a message from the mid-20th century, when politicians, journalists and editors formed a cosy club that agreed what was in the public interest and what wasn't. That it has been inspired by WikiLeaks, a purely online outlet, makes it all the more absurd. If McClelland thinks there is a debate to be had over media handling of national security information, he should throw it open to the media most likely to offer the sort of coverage he appears concerned about.

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by the Metropolitan Police.

The 39-year-old Australian denies allegations he sexually assaulted two women in Sweden.

Mr Assange is due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court later.

A Wikileaks spokesman said Mr Assange's arrest was an attack on media freedom but it would not stop the release of more secret files.

Scotland Yard said Mr Assange was arrested on a European arrest warrant by appointment at a London police station at 0930 GMT.

Mr Assange is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of rape, one of unlawful coercion and two counts of sexual molestation, alleged to have been committed in August 2010.

If the district judge rules there is a prima facie case to be answered by Mr Assange, and the arrest warrant is legally correct, he could be extradited to Sweden.

But the process could take months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

--------------------

Gus: it is about time for the Australian government to intervene and defend Assange with the might of its fair laws and the right of citizenry.

If the Australian government does not have the secret brief from the US, here it is:

Two swedish women have been assigned by the CIA to seduce Mr Assange and have sex with him — with no condom on his dolly. In the country of naked ice-maidens and free sex, wearing no condom is the most odious crime, while in the vatican it's a crime to wear one (a condom), unless one is a gay man prostitute with HIV. Beyond that, the arrest would be funny and worthy of a Naked Gun and a Small Bit movie, if it was not so tragic for a great young man who has had the greatness to make us see the naked grubby rats who run the world with their dirty lies...

See aUSsie flag at top...

There are growing fears among the supporters of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange that the United States is about to indict him for spying. His London lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, said yesterday she understands charges are imminent and are likely to be drawn up under the 1917 Espionage Act.

She stressed that there had been no formal communication from the US Justice Department nor from the American Embassy in London.

However, the combination of strong rumours in Washington legal circles, and US Attorney-General Eric Holder's pronouncement that he intends to hold the leakers of the US embassy cables accountable, has led Robinson and others to fear the worst.

Robinson, an Australian-born lawyer based in London, believes that, as the editor and publisher of WiliLeaks, Assange should be protected by the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment.

Because Assange was not the leaker, but published what had been leaked to him, she argues that he has not broken the law.

However, according to the Daily Telegraph, the Espionage Act forbids the gathering of national defence information if it is known to have been obtained illegally and could be used to the detriment of the US. Furthermore, the Act makes it illegal to fail to return such information to the US government.

Assange is currently in London's Wandsworth jail, denied bail, while his lawyers prepare to appeal against a Swedish request for his extradition to face possible charges of sexual offences against two Swedish women.

He is in solitary confinement and, contrary to recent reports, has no access to a computer or the internet. Jennifer Robinson says he has limited access to a telephone and that she has been allowed only minimal time with her client to prepare for the appeal hearing in London on Tuesday.

Assange is to be represented by the distinguished human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, another Australian who has lived and practised in London for most of his career.

The question now is not just whether the Americans intend to charge Assange with spying, but if they do, when and how they will seek to extradite him.

Australia reneging on cluster mine ban?

As one of the 108 signatory states, Australia has decided that cluster bombs and their munitions merit the description of indiscriminate weapons whose production and use should be universally prohibited.

'An end for all time' promise

In becoming a signatory to the international Cluster Munitions Convention deposited at the United Nations, Australia committed itself to putting "an end for all time" to the suffering caused by cluster munitions.

Whilst efforts to prohibit cluster munitions constitute the most ambitious humanitarian and disarmament treaty since that which brought a moratorium to landmines, its significance goes much further – it has an direct impact on social and economic development, as well as the prospects of peacebuilding efforts.

For example, the UN reported that their demining efforts in 2010 resulted in:

·      1 million explosive remnants of war were destroyed in Afghanistan;

·      7,000 kilometres of roads were opened in both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Sudan;

·      290,000 people in Somalia learnt about landmines and their risks; and

·      In Iraq, 18.7 million square meters of land were cleared from late 2007 to July 2010, helping 1,500 families return to their farms, and enabling 2,400 children to go back to school.

Given the severity of the problem in Laos, it recently added a ninth Millennium Development Goal on its road to economic development, which requires it clear its land of unexploded ordnance.

Reneging?

And yet it has become clear that Australia are likely to - following the release of the senate committee report on 24 March 2011 - ratify the international convention with legislation that violently differs in two ways from that which would have met its obligations to the international community. 

First, the bill undermines that part of the convention that requires Australia to "never under any circumstances" act contrary to the convention by adding phrases that explicitly allow those of our military allies that are not party to the convention unfettered access to stockpile, retain and transit cluster munitions within Australia, as well as allowing Australian military personnel to actively assist in cluster munitions-related activities during joint military operations with our non-signatory allies.

Quite apart from going against the overriding spirit and intent of the treaty, this provision has alarming implications for Australia. For - rightly or wrongly - as one of the United States’ staunchest allies, Australia may house and its military may assist in manoeuvres involving more than a quarter of the world’s 4 billion cluster munitions already in service.

Second, the legislation does not explicitly prohibit investment in foreign companies that produce cluster munitions as part of its broader business activities.

Indeed the respective governments of New Zealand, Ireland, Holland, Luxembourg and Belgium have in their domestic legislation included statements specifically banning investment and provision of other financial services - such as banking, loans and equity - to companies that either develop or produce cluster munitions.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/20114410351647319.html