tip off

Greens back Assange asylum plea, but US has already won

Julian Assange’s request for asylum in Ecuador has been strengthened by a letter from Greens Senator Scott Ludlam supporting his case that he has been effectively abandoned by the Australian government.

The Ecuadorian embassy in London has been swamped with letters of support, some from high-profile supporters, for Assange’s request for asylum since news broke that he had sought refuge there early yesterday morning. However, Ludlam’s statement as an Australian parliamentarian is significantly more important given the basis on which Assange has sought asylum.

Ludlam’s letter (copy here) describes his extended process of asking parliamentary questions and making FOI requests made to determine the government’s attitude towards Assange, including why the Prime Minister made her discredited claim that WikiLeaks had behaved illegally. On that basis, Ludlam concludes “with regret”: “I strongly believe Mr Assange is in need of a government willing to stand up for civil and political rights.”

Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London awaiting the determination of his application, said to be within the next 24 hours. He is there with a small group of supporters, including Australian human rights lawyer Jen Robinson and British journalism veteran Gavin MacFadyen.

The Australian government’s strategy in response to the request appears to be to use its consular support to Assange as evidence of its bona fides. Nicola Roxon this morning was insisting the government had provided adequate support and that anything else was a demand for intervention by the government in the legal process of the UK and Sweden.

This is the straw man already used by Bob Carr in his deflection of questions about the issue. The problem is that at no stage has the government indicated its willingness to defend Assange from an open campaign of intimidation by the United States purely on the basis of his journalism. That campaign has so far consisted of:

  • A financial blockade of WikiLeaks instigated by the Obama administration
  • A grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and Assange
  • US State Department claims that Assange is not a journalist and therefore not entitled to First Amendment protections
  • The description of Assange as a terrorist by the Vice-President.

Further elements of the campaign have recently come to light. French cyber activist Jeremie Zimmermann was detained by FBI agents while travelling from the United States back to France after he filmed an episode of Assange’s television show and interrogated about Assange. Icelandic activist Smári McCarthy, who also appeared on the program, was stopped while entering the US and later approached in Washington DC to become an informer against Assange. Crikey is investigating further incidents where people with links to WikiLeaks have been stopped while travelling.

The Gillard government’s response has been to insist the US is not doing anything in relation to Assange, a narrow legal point that defies the public reality of a multi-pronged campaign, one that the government insists it can’t see and therefore can do nothing about. “Wilful blindness” is the phrase that comes to mind. However, that strategy briefly lapsed in 2010 when Julia Gillard made the error of declaring WikiLeaks’ activity illegal. That claim, which Gillard has pointedly never retracted and that  was clearly contradicted by advice from the AFP, may also prove crucial to demonstrating Assange’s case that the government will not protect him.

Late this morning, the Senate approved a motion calling on the government to provide the same level of support to Assange it had provided to other Australians and for the retraction of the government’s claims of illegality.

Regardless of the outcome of Assange’s application, the blunt truth about the Obama administration’s campaign against WikiLeaks and Assange is that it has been enormously successful. The financial blockade has strangled the organisation.

Assange’s strategy in relation to extradition to Sweden — and now his attempted flight to Ecuador — has been dictated by the very real concern that the US wants to get him, and that his own government won’t lift a finger to prevent it. Assange has thus entangled himself in litigation in an attempt to avoid placing himself in a position where Sweden could surrender him to the United States. The work of WikiLeaks has thus been superseded by the soap opera-like story of Assange, of which Ecuador is only the latest exotic backdrop.

That’s just how the Obama administration wants it. And, quite likely, the Gillard government too.

  • 1
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    If past history is anything to go by, it is doubtful that an Australian (government) polititian of either Labor or Liberal persuasion would defend an Australian citizen if the US decided they wanted to grab that citizen for immoral purposes with regard to due process and fairness of the law.

  • 2
    Anoise Mike
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Great write up, Bernard.

    Bob Care on Lateline last night was pathetic with his verbose and pompous stonewalling on the issue of the ‘secret’ Virginian Grand Jury indictment. Would have been nice if Lateline asked him about Hilary Clinton’s visit to Sweden only days after the Assange judgement. First Secretary of State to visit Sweden since 1976 apparently and at such a time in the World with relatively nothing else going on except for potential Euro meltdown, Arab Spring turning violent, oh and the small issue of arresting Climate Change in the next decade which the ICCP says we must do to avoid catastrophic consequences for billions of poor people and rich people alike.

  • 3
    Glen Schaefer
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Yes the performance by Bob Carr last night was illuminating to say the least, but not unexpected.

    He basically tried to deny the US had any knowledge of extradicion measures by the US while at the same time trying not to tell a porky about having any knowledge of their plans. When pushed by the Steve Cannane he backed down a bit to say “at least not by any of his diplomatic contacts”

    What a sad it is when our Gov’t is totally in cahoots with a foreign Gov’t to illegally extradite and detain one of it’s own citizens.

    Time to rip up the 1942 agreement.


  • 4
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    The United States has globalised Kafka. It has a long and toxic history of global extra-judicial arrogance and impunity. They refuse to sumbmit to the International Criminal Court, indulge in abduction (“extraordinary renditions”), routinely demand and get connivance from other states (eg UK, Poland recently), deliver abductees for torture to compliant states like Syria, Libya etc., use “enhanced interrogation” - ranging from water-boarding to solitary confinement (Bradley Manning), demand and get compliance from their global corporations- such as Amex, Paypal and Visa (to kill off Wikileaks)…

    Add that to six decades of annual invasions around the world….

    Australia has a deplorable record of craven obedience to American abuses.
    Never forget that Gillard instantly condemned Assange. Heer banality and incompetence is nothing compared to her reflex obedience to the American empire.
    There appears to be little support for Assange among the parliamentary ALP. And we know almost all liberals in the Liberal Party have been surgically removed.

    Gillard’s pretence of consular assistance is disingenuous. The govt. has far more time for convicted drug smuggler Corby- and the politely detained (with yoghurt) ICC lawyer - than Assange.
    Given the chance, Gillard would drag Assange to Washington as hand luggage…

  • 5
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Classic tactics - strangle the business end of things and force the main protagonist into self-preservation.

  • 6
    michael r james
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    One gets a headache trying to parse the rationale or likely endpoint of this Ecuador caper. If it really is to end up with asylum in Ecuador then one wonders how Assange will physically get there from central London?

    I agree with Rundle that he may have been better to have done a runner, across the channel, to France where as a popular freedom fighter, rebel and perceptions as anti-Americain (not to mention that arty floppy white hair!) he would find popular support — and with the socialist in full control, less likelihood of succombing to American political pressure. They might even award him a Legion d’Honneur (hey, if Kylie …) and, since he is “sans domicile and sans ressource” a grace-and-favour apartment in the Palais Royale reserved for such heroes.

    The other strawman (repeated about 4 times by Bob Carr yesterday) that if the US really wanted to extradite Assange from Sweden they could do it, arguably easier, from the UK, rather forgets the optics of the politics. The Brits, even a conservative administration (but don’t forget a coalition with Liberal Democrats) are unlikely to want to bring such an unpopular and so visible thing upon themselves. One imagines this was conveyed to the cousins early on that it wasn’t on. Also the Brits made sure, unlike Australia, that their citizens were repatriated from Camp Delta, Gitmo, early on. As Rundle has documented, the Swedes seem to harbour no such qualms, political or moral, and have considerable political issues (vis a vis Russia and NATO) they do not want to jeopardize.

    On the other hand, Ecuador? The reason for this choice, other than the legal status of their extradition treaty with the US, is that the country is currently no great friend of the US. But doesn’t this suggest another awful likelihood? Would it not provide the US the near-perfect opportunity to eliminate the terror*ste Assange with extreme prejudice in a country they care little of any political or trade consequences? And with plausible deniability (as much as they care); this is hardly the most stable or law-abiding place. They have done it to American citizens, admittedly in places like Yemen. They would obviously hesitate to do this in most European countries but in a tiny unfriendly South American state most Americans (and a goodly number of others) would have trouble locating on a map? Is our Julian setting up his own martyrdom a la Che?

  • 7
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Our political creeps are really pathetic, they tell lies even as they know that we know they are lying, it just shows how much they respect the voting public.
    If Assange does make it a drone will get him, and our heroes will applaud OBUMMER.

  • 8
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Can someone please tell me why The NY Times editor hasn’t been arrested, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The ABC, SBS etc haven’t had action taken against them? I don’t understand the difference. Why can the other news outlets, together with film footage of those alleged murders in Iraq, NOT face the same treatment. I’ve seen the awful footage and read many other ‘secret’ emails etc on other outlets, not Wikileaks!

    Who says person A is not a journalist, but person B is? Does this include opinion pieces such as yourself Bernard? Is it because Julian Assange doesn’t have a Certificate re his journalistic qualifications? If I write a book, am I not an author? Even if I don’t have the same qualifications as say Woodward from the Watergate debacle?

    I don’t seen how he’s done anything different than Daniel Elsberg? And Daniel Elsberg agrees with me? It doesn’t make any sense? Is it only due to him not having money and influence(apart from them being embarrassed by blatant acts of murder, cruelty etc?)? I didn’t see the film footage on Wikileaks website, I saw it on ABC TV news?

    Australia’s crawling after the US is obscene! It’s time we called a halt to it before we get sucked in too deeply - again?

  • 9
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    @Liz 45 - Easy. Julian Assange is only one individual with limited resources. The US mostly goes for easy targets that present limited political damage if things go pear shape. Australian governments of both persuasions have since WW2 wanted to crawl to the US (for protection from American defined enemies) we amongst - many - are therefore their ‘best-est’ friends.

  • 10
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Carr goes to strife torn Libya to rescue a lawyer, he refuses to help Assange.

  • 11
    zut alors
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Let’s put a tune to “Mr Assange has received more consular support than any Australian in a comparable timeframe and he’ll continue to get it” because it’s now become a song sung, ad infinitum, by the Gillard govt.

    It needs a new verse - and I don’t mean that silly one about the USA not officially flagging extradition.

  • 12
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    The US may be trying to gather evidence against JA, because he severly embarrassed them. He also, in passing embarrassed the Australian government. In fact he made them all look like tw*ts. But, what is it we want the Government to do about it?

    The work Wikileaks did was important and valuable. But let’s be honest, we’re talking about avoiding s*xual assault allegations in and extradition to Sweeden, not secret rendition by the US.

  • 13
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    “Wilful blindness” is the phrase that comes to mind.
    Congaline of suckholes, in the immortal words of Mark Latham, springs more readily to my mind.

  • 14
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Part of the difficulty in untangling the Assange saga is the surface reality and the underlying political dimensions.
    For example, according to a leaked Stratfor report the Americans already have a sealed indictment alleging breaches of the Espionage Act where the maximum penalty is death. Acknowledging that would create huge problems for the Australian government so they go along with the fiction that there is no indictment as yet.
    There is also a specific provision in Swedish law that prohibits extradition to a country where the accused faces the prospect of the death sentence. Notwithstanding some of the wilder claims by US congressmen and women (and others) the US is likely to provide the Swedes with a guarantee that the death penalty will not be sought.
    That is hardly the end of Assange’s woes however, as the Americans have shown repeatedly in the past decade or so that they have no compunction about imprisoning people indefinitely without their ever being charged. As Glenn Greenwald points out in today’s UK Guardian Assange has every right to fear being subjected to the less tha tender mercies of the US judicial system. He could face the very real prospect of rotting indefinitely in some US gulag.
    None of which appears to worry Carr, Gillard or any member of the Coalition. Their sickening obeisance to the US is part of a larger picture of which Assange is merely one unfortunate victim.

  • 15
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    “Assange” (broadcasting what elected individuals have done in their capacity of representation, or have had done in the name of those they represent) divides people into two camps - those that vilify him for what he did and those that defend it.
    I won’t change the mind of those that vilify him and they have yet to convince me that what he did (in disclosing the extent of those “excesses of power”) was that evil. Including those allegations of those lives “put at risk” with those disclosures, when no one can point to such outcomes – while the governments, that he was supposed to have undermined, did. It seems more the case, those governments were more upset that what they were doing was being exposed - and wasn’t so “representative” of what people wanted done in their name.
    But Assange and Manning are going through what Ellsberg did 40 years ago. Look at his reputation compared to those of those he exposed.

  • 16
    michael r james
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Forgive me for re-posting my idea (posted to the Comments section today) with which I am so immodestly proud:

    It does seem a tad mysterious why Assange would trap himself inside the Ecuador embassy. He has some of the best international law experts in the business (assuming he confided his intention to jump bail with them, maybe not — speaking of which why the heck hasn’t ABC interviewed Robertson (Geoffrey) or Robinson (Jen)? Maybe tonight on Lateline.).

    He is no dummy. Would he not have thought this through?

    But, d’oh, then it hit me! He isn’t inside the embassy at all. The whole thing was a feint while he did the runner hypothesized by Rundle (cypherpunk yacht or maybe just the Eurostar). By the time everyone wakes up to this fact, the authorities will have yoke all over them and Jules will be wherever he wants to be. (I wonder if Jemima still has her dad’s luxurious house in Paris?)

    Actually he might be headed to Switzerland which has strong obligatory political refugee law.

  • 17
    michael r james
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Forgive me for re-posting my idea (posted to the Comments section today) with which I am so immodestly proud:

    It does seem a tad mysterious why Assange would trap himself inside the Ecuador embassy. He has some of the best international law experts in the business (assuming he confided his intention to jump bail with them, maybe not — speaking of which why the heck hasn’t ABC interviewed Robertson (Geoffrey) or Robinson (Jen)? Maybe tonight on Lateline.).

    He is no dummy. Would he not have thought this through?

    But, d’oh, then it hit me! He isn’t inside the embassy at all. The whole thing was a feint while he did the runner hypothesized by Rundle (cypherpunk yacht or maybe just the Eurostar). By the time everyone wakes up to this fact, the authorities will have yoke all over them and Jules will be wherever he wants to be. (I wonder if Jemima still has her dad’s luxurious house in Paris?)

    Actually he might be headed to Switzerland which has strong obligatory political refugee law.

  • 18
    michael r james
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, I’ve thrown the comments into permanent boldface! I did this once before and there seems no way to reset it.

  • 19
    michael r james
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Forgive me for re-posting my idea (posted to the Comments section today) with which I am so immodestly proud:

    It does seem a tad mysterious why Assange would trap himself inside the Ecuador embassy. He has some of the best international law experts in the business (assuming he confided his intention to jump bail with them, maybe not — speaking of which why the heck hasn’t ABC interviewed Robertson (Geoffrey) or Robinson (Jen)? Maybe tonight on Lateline.).

    He is no dummy. Would he not have thought this through?

    But, d’oh, then it hit me! He isn’t inside the embassy at all. The whole thing was a feint while he did the runner hypothesized by Rundle (cypherpunk yacht or maybe just the Eurostar). By the time everyone wakes up to this fact, the authorities will have yoke all over them and Jules will be wherever he wants to be. (I wonder if Jemima still has her dad’s luxurious house in Paris?)

    Actually he might be headed to Switzerland which has strong obligatory political refugee law.

  • 20
    Posted Thursday, 21 June 2012 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    Bravo, Michael R James! You can be forgiven a triple post (bold) with pike. I hope your thesis is correct, but I fear not. Surely the choice of Ecuador shows how desperate the man’s plight is.

    Surely all this could be fixed by a) the over-zealous Swedish prosecutors interviewing Assange by Skype (or perhaps things are a bit more backward in S than we think?); and b) Sweden promising not to agree, under any circumstances, to an extradition request from the US. Rather than assurances, all Assange gets is the weasel words of the Australian gov’t, including the alleged Grand Jury indictment in the US. Would you be an Australian in trouble overseas with this kind of back up?

    As for the US, it appears that blowing up the World Trade Center is more or less on a par with releasing the diplomatic cables. Kill us or shame us - equally bad. That’s not a healthy country. I wouldn’t put it past the US to go into Ecuador, even if he gets there, and potting him off.

    It’s a sad, bad world out there, Virginia.

  • 21
    zut alors
    Posted Friday, 22 June 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    Interesting to hear Assange’s interview on Radio National with Fran Kelly this morning. He has refuted the generous amount of consular support touted by Gillard and of which Bob Carr was boasting on Lateline this week. This presents a dilemma, who to believe?

    Would we believe a man who is hellbent on exposing the lies of governments or would we believe one of those governments?

    The noses of Gillard and Carr just grew another inch.

  • 22
    Posted Friday, 22 June 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been following the Assange story for quite some time, and apart from emailing a Swedish journalist, outraged at the horrible write up he did about Assange’s autobiography (or what ever that was), I have not made any real meaningful contribution at all to helping the situation. (if indeed, it can at all be helped. but then, are we not fellow Australian citizens?/ human beings supposedly voting for these miscreants? - *though our status as voters is really not something to count on* - Do we really have no contribution to make to this terrible situation? I’m hearing a resounding “No” in my mind)

    Reading the comments, I see that there are quite a few intelligent people on this site and was hoping that someone might guide me in a direction where I might be of some help.
    What do you think about letter writing? Or are we just left with the option of donating to Assange (and Manning) for legal expenses etc.?
    Is there anything anyone would recommend? I must say that I really do feel helpless in this situation. The more I come across (for the most part) support for Assange/Wikileaks, the more I feel frustrated at the events unfolding.
    Forgive me if I sound naive, or uneducated on the matter. I find myself almost desperate to make myself useful somehow, other than sitting idly by and scanning the news for updates.
    Keep in mind that I have not as yet attempted to delve deeper into the ways I could ‘do’ anything, hence my trite comment.

    If anyone has any ideas, do let me know!


  • 23
    Posted Friday, 22 June 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    @BILL HILLIGER - Thank you. I know the politics behind it and the history of the US hypocrisy etc, but why hasn’t some/one journalist asked both the US govt and Australian Govts for their reasoning. I also know that Obama has signed his own authority to kill US citizens anywhere at anytime without having to justify it to anyone, let alone a US Court! But, why won’t someone ask Julia Gillard for her initial stand etc, and why doesn’t/didn’t she vilify any of the media publications that I mentioned? We know the answers, but I’d like them to be asked the question?

    Every time I hear Hillary Clinton or our Govt ‘suck holes’ air their outrage over violence in another country (as horrendous as it is) I want to be sick! The hypocrisy is breath taking. If some Govt invaded another country and murdered a person, regardless of their alleged crime/s, it would be hailed as a terrorist act? But, the US does it and not a word. No report to the ICC, no condemnation by the UN? Breath taking in its arrogance!

    @MARILYN - The contrast between the two situations is huge isn’t it? Talk about hypocrites. Carr wants to keep on repeating the same chant, ‘we can’t determine court cases in another country’ blah blah! JG is no better than Howard’s record re Hicks, Habib and Haneef! Remember how they all denied that Habib had been taken to Egypt, or that Hicks was OK, and Haneef - well, Howard and Co didn’t utter one word of condemnation when the truth was revealed about the Prosecutor - who (allegedly)lied before a Judge in order to get a continuance of holding Haneef in custody? They almost destroyed another human being! Like they did with Hicks and Habib?

    @MICHAEL R JAMES - Oh, I hope you’re right! It’ll give me a really good belly laugh! Blissful! BUT, how could he do it? Wouldn’t they have all exits covered? Unless he was sneaked out in camouflage? A woman with a dark wig? Excellent!

    @DAMIEN - I’m the first one to condemn anyone who commits s*xual assault, of any kind, but let’s be truthful here. Julian Assange was ALLOWED to leave Sweden, AFTER the allegations by the two women concerned. He OFFERED to go back and answer questions? No need he was told. THEN a political person over-ruled the earlier decision and put into play these allegations. The actions of both women are on the Internet somewhere? The Prosecutor(Sweden) has been quoted as saying that his loyalty to the US is total? Assange has NOT been charged with any crime in any of the countries concerned - US, Sweden and Australia. His only crime in Britain was in breaking his remand conditions a few days ago?

    As others have said, this Govt like others (US and Oz) treats us with contempt. We’re all suffering from dementia and so can’t possibly remember past history, or that we’ll swallow anything we hear! Frustrating to say the least!

  • 24
    Posted Friday, 22 June 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    @LIZ45 They didn’t poke anyone awake without a condom and nor excite a prosecutor to make his name as a feminist warrior.

  • 25
    Daniel Ruben
    Posted Saturday, 23 June 2012 at 3:24 am | Permalink

    I thought the UK court’s decision to allow Assange’s extradition was a judgement about whether the Swedish prosecutor was a judicial authority or not in the context of the UK’s place in the EU. Anyone who goes to Scandinavian countries intending to have casual unprotected heterosexual sex really ought to familiarise themselves with Scandinavia’s peculiar “social judicial” system. Just because a country has a democratic politic, is European and populated by blondes does not necessarily mean it has a Common Law legacy where trial by jury is an option. Assange is a drama queen. He knows he will be convicted in a closed court in Sweden (and serve some minor sentence as is usually the case there) because he broke Swedish law. Even if Swedish law wouyld be laughed out of court here. Bad luck. If you’re going to have sex in a foreign country you better familiarize yourself with its laws of consent first.. I think the US has more pressing issues on its plate than one Julian Assange. I may be wrong, but in any case before he can be extradited he will have to run the course of the Swedish judicial and penal system.

  • 26
    Posted Saturday, 23 June 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Julian Assange will triumph. He has already triumphed in the fact that he has exposed all the liars and criminals in our government and the US govt. The closer the US govt get to killing off Julian Assange , the worse off they will look in the public eye. If Obama has Julian Assange assassinated there will be another Julian Assange to replace him. We are all Julian Assange.

  • 27
    Owen Gary
    Posted Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    You basically have someone in Assange who wants to alert us all of the lengths that foreign powers & our own governments go to in order to hide things from us.

    (Is this what our true democracy is??)

    Then you have the US who declare themselves the dictators & censors of all information.

    What’s next “burning the books” it is noted that they are sneaking quietly around & waiting for the dust to settle on this one. Trouble is we are all Julian Assanges in the making as already stated & it will only spark the flame that causes the inevitable fire.

  • 28
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    Four years ago, on the campaign trail, candidate Barack Obama shared his views on whistleblowers. He said: “Often the best source of information about waste, fraud and abuse in government is a government employee committed to public integrity, willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism … should be encouraged rather than stifled.”

    As President, the reality has been very different. On his watch, six whistleblowers have been charged under the Espionage Act for allegedly mishandling classified information. That is twice as many as all past presidents combined.

    And while Manning and Assange may be tried for treason what defines patriotism?

    Is it when a Prime Minister or a President lies about the reason for war?
    Is it when the military lies about casualities?
    Is it when an Army )Lt. Col. Danny Davis) broke ranks to debunk official reports of progress and cites multiple journalistic and analytical reports that back his perspective, and wonders: Isn’t Congress the least bit curious about whether it’s been badly deceived?

    When are people everywhere irrespective of religion, politics, race, culture, nationality going to re-unite and mobilise against these acts of deceit and wilful crime?

  • 29
    Owen Gary
    Posted Saturday, 30 June 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    We may be wrong here, although Bob Carr didn’t state it last night the government has offered assistance: Economy class 1 way to Washington with (free handcuffs)

    The ruling elite who pull the strings of these politicians will collapse & fold in the breeze once the awareness unites all!!

Womens Agenda


Smart Company