A number of points, first and foremost, it is easier for the US to extradite from England than a much more liberal Sweden! So if the US wanted to extradite him, he would likely be gone already?
Secondly, he seems to have a case to answer?
If I or any other Australian, had done what he allegedly did, we would also have a case to answer, and face extradition and the full force of Swedish law?
Somewhere it is written, "do the crime do the time". He seem to be going to quite extraordinary lengths to simply avoid answering charges? And for mine, it's not the way any truly innocent man behaves?
Rhrosty.

The truth of the matter is that the Australian Government, under the pathetic leadership of Julia Gillard, is subservient to the U.S. in all things.

She has opened our country to the militaristic, imperialistic, warmongering 'SuperPower' (which is broke) and she will do anything it wants including not supporting Australian citizens who have had the misfortune to fall into its bloody hands.

Julian Assange had the courage to expose an aspect of the duplicity and brutality of the U.S. He should be lauded, should have received a hero's medal from Australia. Instead he is treated as a traitor because he presented the world with the truth about America and Australia's incestuous relationship with it.

Rhrosty, think again. Baaaing with the sheeple will not set the world on a better course!

http://dangerouscreation.com

I am confused. My understanding is that he is to be extradited to Sweden on sexual assault charges. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech or anything else.If that is the case doesnt matter whether you agree with his other ventures or not. He has to answer to the sexual assault charges end of story. If anyone else had have done what he has allegedly done they would have to answer and so should he.

>>in his battle for freedom from the clutches of the Swedes.<<

Because the Swedish are actually an evil and duplicitous race and all that niceness they project is just an act to fool us? Because some horrible fate at the hands of those wicked Swedes awaits Julian Assange if he is extradited there? I find this hard to believe.

I'm pretty sure all that awaits Julian in Sweden is a trial under a system that while different to ours is fair and just. If he is not convicted he is free to go and if he is convicted he will be sentenced. The sentence may involve some time in a Swedish prison for sexual offences committed under Swedish law. I don't see what this has to do with freedom.

>>After all, two of the seven judges on the British High Court found it reasonable to decide that a Swedish prosecutor is not a “judicial officer” entitled to seek extradition<<

Now this is interesting: we inherited our legal system from Britain. If the majority of their High Court judges found that Swedish prosecutors were judicial officers entitled to seek extradition I'd be interested to see how the bench of our High Court would decide on the matter.

>>Why is it so hard for Bob Carr and Julia Gillard to support that significant minority opinion<<

What is wrong with them supporting the majority opinion of a group of a highly learned and respected judicial experts working within a legal framework almost identical to our own?

Cheers,

Tony

Everyone knows that the rape allegations are only a pretext to send Assange to the USA to be executed there for embarrassing their leaders. This should be recognized for what it is - an act of war.

Australia should send a helicopter with Australian commandos, either to the UK or to Sweden, to snatch Assange and bring him to the safety of an Australian navy ship or submarine. If this fails, then the next step would be to detain Swedish dimplomats and inform the Swedish government that if Assange is sent to the USA, then the fate of these diplomats will be identical to his.

... it is recommended that you actually read and understand the item/article before posting comments ... it's almost as though parroting what has been said by mainstream media and government officials makes something fact ... Wikileaks has already illustrated beyond any doubt - through release of internal US Government documents - that 'democracy' is a furphy and that the governments of Sweden and Australia are little more than puppet defacto-representatives of US policy (and yes, i see the irony - unlike many of my fellow contributors) ...

... i do believe (let me review the article on which i am making a post ... yes, it's there - always wise to be sure so you dont look foolish) that there are 'NO CHARGES' ... weird that the Swedes are seeking extradition ...

... in an age where information is the currency of our time, how appropriate that those in charge of the temple are seeking to silence those calling for free speech ... almost metaphorical ... sounds curiously familiar ... like a story i heard when i was young ... how dare we desire truth and transparency!

It's good that the topic of Assange was raised and that the public is reminded that Julia Gillard and Bob Carr are sitting on their hands.

They are not in my humble opinion lackies of the US Government, they are just lilly livered, overpaid and useless. NSW saw just how useless "Dubai" Bob Carr was as Premier, where he oversaw the disintegration of public infrastructure when not busy giving the nod to building the unsightly 'toaster' abutting the Opera House. And shamelessly doing so in the 'caretaker period'.

The article disappoints by emphasising whether or not Assange should be answerable to Swedish law. The writer indicates that he should not because Swedish "justice" differs significantly from Australian justice. A key argument in favor of the writer, but she failed to mention, is that as a foreigner, Assange will be denied bail, for an indefinite period.

Arguing that in Sweden Assange's rights differ from those of alleged criminals in Australia is a poor argument.

If I travel to Qatar with drugs in my luggage I will be beheaded. Period. The fact that had I committed the act of drug smuggling/possession in Australia an Australian court may send me to gaol with 3 square meals a day for 25 years is irrelevant poppycock.

The real argument in favour of Assange is that he did exactly what newspapers worldwide did, such as the NY Times, the Guardian, El Pais etc.
He published.

Why are proprietors and editors of THOSE publications not the subject of interest by the relevant authorities? Could it be that they have deeper pockets that Assange and are more intimately connected to the levers of governments across the world?

Assange is singled out unfairly. That's the crux of the matter.

>>Everyone knows that the rape allegations are only a pretext to send Assange to the USA to be executed there for embarrassing their leaders.<<

Okay Yuyutsu: time for a refresher course in geography. Here is a link to a world map:

http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/hobodyer-large.jpg

See the big purple country in the bottom left of the map just above Canada? That's the USA. That's the country whose leaders Assange embarrassed and where the bad men who supposedly want to execute Assange live. They aren't making rape allegations or trying to extradite Assange because they don't have a case to do so.

Now you see the little yellow country in the bottom right of the map just off to the west of Russia? That's Sweden. That's the country we're talking about: it's the one the rape allegations are coming from and the one that wants to extradite Assange. I don't think Sweden has the death penalty.

Just remember that one is purple and big and the other is small and yellow. That way you shouldn't have too much trouble remembering that they are two different countries and you might stop trying to conflate the two - a notion that a lot of Swedes would take offence to.

>>This should be recognized for what it is - an act of war.<<

No it isn't: this is an act of war.

>>Australia should send a helicopter with Australian commandos, either to the UK or to Sweden, to snatch Assange and bring him to the safety of an Australian navy ship or submarine. If this fails, then the next step would be to detain Swedish dimplomats and inform the Swedish government that if Assange is sent to the USA, then the fate of these diplomats will be identical to his.<<

As well as being incredibly stupid and immature. Thank God our Government live in the real world and so have the sense not to base their foreign relations on Hollywood action movies: commandos abseiling from helicopters and rogue Governments seizing foreign diplomats as hostages make exciting films but lousy policy.

Cheers,

Tony

People really do not read articles do they? Julian Assange is not facing any charges in Sweden, he has not been charged with anything, they merely claim they want to interview him which can be done in London.

Or from the space station or the bottom of the sea but does not require his forced extradition to Sweden or anywhere else.

But for anyone in Australia to claim he is treated worse than Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks with even less care by the Howard mob certainly destroys their credibility.

And in a nation that allows public servants to drag men, women and babies off the streets and jail them for life without charge because another public servant says so is not a nation that agrees with the rule of law and justice and has no moral high ground to stand on.

Very well put, Marilyn Shepherd, and several others of similar ilk. Australia is not, unfortunately, an independent nation, it is wholly subservient to the USA through ANZUS, Howard's "free" trade agreement, and the forelock tugging penchant of successive prime ministers. It's not going to change, We'll go to war for them, Buy their inferior and over priced equipment, host their armies, make an enemy of our best trading partner... anything at all because we love them. Gillard said that in her first speech as PM. We voted these idiots into office, so we're getting the government we deserve.

It seems strange that many of the posters here are in favour of executive interference in the legal process in the case of Assange, but would otherwise strenuously defend the separation of powers between executive and judiciary (eg Marilyn and the Thomson case).

This shows an unfortunate flexibility consistent with the concept of ends justifying means. If advocating political interfence from the left to support Assange, you can hardly complain about the mechanism if the US moves similarly from the right against him. I have not seen evidence of US moves to date, despite wild allegations.

Assange has been provided with reasonable support from the Australian government given his own substantial resources (intellectually and financially). One could usefully compare it with the Corby case. He has exhausted the extensive appeals mechanism available in his country of asylum (Britain), and will now involuntarily move into the direct jurisdiction of Sweden.

The Swedish legal system is different from the common law based system of the Anglo countries, but do these posters suggest that simply on this basis it is inferior? If so they are essentially impugning the legal systems of the entire European Union outside the UK, as these are all fundamentally similar.

Swedish law and proceedures need to be allowed to act without attempts at external political interference. This is a reasonable general rule, whether you feel politically advantaged or disadvantaged by it in specific cases (Assange vs Thomson).

Dear Newtus,

<<Swedish law and proceedures need to be allowed to act without attempts at external political interference.>>

But everyone knows that this will not happen: Once landed in Sweden, Assange will be sent on the next plane to the USA - as far as Sweden is concerned, this will be the end of the road, Sweden never really wanted to try Assange and will not even bother to try him there.

What surprises me is that you consider Assange as "left": Assange has embarrassed all world leaders, left right and center, he stands for freedom while the Left in general stands for government control.

Let's clarify this situation.

Julian Assange has been accused of raping two women, i.e. having sex with them against their will: in one case, while the woman was sleeping, in the other case persisting when the woman objected to sex without a condom. If he did his as they assert, then what he did comes within the definition of rape - or am I just too far behind the times in this modern world ? Are these women just drama queens ? Should we tell them to just suck it up ?

Anyway, if he is taken to Sweden and is found guilty as charged, then he is guilty of having committed rape. If that is the case, he is a rapist.

When he finishes his sentence, he will be released and either returned to Britain, from whence he is to be extradited, OR he will be free to go where he likes. Any proceedings by the US to extradite him to the US would have to proceed from Britain.

Some suggest that this is all so unjust, a rapist persecuted by the US - but I keep forgetting, he's one of OUR rapists, isn't he ?

Come on, sisters, why aren't you out in the streets ?

Joe

<<Anyway, if he is taken to Sweden and is found guilty as charged>>

Nobody has a problem with Assange being found guilty of rape, not even Assange himself, but he will NOT be found guilty, and he will not be found innocent either: instead he will be sent straight away to the USA in accordance with a "prisoner exchange" treaty that Sweden has with the USA, and then he will never return to Sweden (except perhaps as a ghost).

... i do so love irony ... thanks for the thoughtful posts (or are you just trying to make me giggle?) ... 'interference in the legal process' you say? ... hmmmm, correct me if my research is incorrect, but is not the reason for the appeals against extradition to Sweden that the process has not been duly followed? ... and again, my understanding of the facts do not fit with 'if he is taken to Sweden and is found guilty as charged' ... so far as i was aware, there are not yet any charges ... as i am obviously missing many of the facts, can my forum contributors bring me up to date ... and please pass on the source that assists you in managing to stay ahead of my simple understandings ... have there been leaks? ... please, do tell ... i would love to know as much as you guys do ...

... and as for Thomson, i am certain you people of superior standing and judgement will make the appropriate admissions and apology should it be shown that your judgement was premature (or should that be immature? ... no premature is probably more accurate a description) ... due process you say? ... then go and look again - as it appears that you have missed plenty (or are you just towing the company line perhaps? - brilliant!!) ...

... and before you get all 'bloody leftie' on me, i can tell you i have no wings ... i do not subscribe to any of your left/right political fumblings ... those terms and references as old and anachronistic as the cold war ...

So, Yuyutsu, you are serious rather than being heavily ironic.

Given you assume that Assange is to be transferred by the Swedes to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden from the UK, I cannot see why the US is bothering with the rigmorale to date, and have not simply taken him from the UK.

The Strasbourg Convention (the multilateral prisoner exchange treaty to which you refer) includes among its numerous adherents not only the USA and Sweden but the UK. The convention applies however only to convicted prisoners, and only for their transfer to a country in which they are a citizen. Hence it is not being used by Sweden in its application for the extradition of Assange. Finally - it requires the agreement of the prisoner before the transfer can take place.

It is therefore entirely inapplicable to Assange, at present because he is not convicted but even if this occurs because the Convention does not include Australia and Australia is the only possible destination for continued detention.

Thus if Assange is to be spirited off the the USA without his agreement, legally the process is the same as that he is going through at present (extradition, and could be done as conveniently from the UK or anywhere else in the world as Sweden. Prisoner exchange treaties are entirely irrelevant.

There seems no justification to construct elaborate conspiracy theories when a simple explanation is in existence - Assange has to face a strong prima facie case of sexual offences in Sweden.

As I have indicated in an earlier post, the Corby case has many parallels, including a strong prima facie case, unnecessary and elaborate conspiracy theories, and a failure to understand non-Anglo legal systems. The misogyny and Angloceltic superiority demonstrated by many Assange supporters is distressing for progressives who know Sweden as an example of an advanced social democracy with strong protection of human rights. Indeed the fact that Assange is being questioned about his behaviour is a result of this high regard for social democracy and human rights - not the reverse.

Yuyutsu,

If Assange is extradited to Sweden and charged with rape, and found guilty, then this rapist will do his time in Sweden - or not, if his sentence is suspended. He then has the legal options of returning to Britain or going to another country.

The US cannot legally extradite him from Sweden until he has completed his sentence since, technically, he comes under the protection of British law, i.e. as the law of the country from which he will be extradited and to which he would be returned - unless he wishes to go elsewhere, since after all, even rapists have some say in the matter of where they want to go after they have done their time.

Once he has done his time and goes either back to Britain or to another country, the US would be quite within their rights to attempt to extradite him to the US from there, if they can demonstrate that he has committed crimes against the US in some way. If they don't try to extradite him, then he can go where he likes. If they make a case sufficient for him to be extradited, and tried, and found guilty, then he faces the consequences. But there are a hell of a lot of steps in all of that process.

$ 50 says he will not be extradited to the US from Sweden, but from Britain or another country.

Cheers,

Joe

As I understand it, or as I read somewhere, there is a special treaty between the USA and Sweden that allows them to "lend" detainees to each other before trial, so they can be trialed first in the other country. This has nothing to do with the Strasbourg Convention and the UK has no similar arrangements. Somehow they have a way to work around and not call it "extradition", but something like sending the person "on loan". Practically, it's the same.

Let's face it, the U.S. could take out Julian once he's in Sweden using its Presidential Assassination Squad (PAS) or by using a drone.

Then again he could be rendered by the Americans and disappear into the torture cells of some third world country never to be seen again.

Americans are ever inventive when it comes to stifling dissent!

... OK Joe, how about this? ... you stated: '$ 50 says he (Assange) will not be extradited to the US from Sweden, but from Britain or another country' ... the terms: if you are correct, i will donate AUD50 to a charity of your choice ... if i am correct you can donate AUD50 to WikiLeaks (as i am confident that you are as keen a proponent of free speech, less government intervention and transparent governance as am i ... as is Assange) ... if we are both wrong, all bets are off ... want to produce proof of donation on this forum? ... or would you prefer an escrow service? (which is nothing like the type of 'service' Ch9 dug up as "more proof" in the Thomson case ... ha ha ... i have a credit card silp ... oh they are good ... ha ha) ...

Hi o,

Perhaps I should have kept that bet down to: "$ 50 says he will not be extradited to the US from Sweden." Because I don't think he will be extradited even from Britain or another country.

As you suggest, we're equally concerned about free speech, etc., although I'm pretty sure that all governments should be entitled to a degree of confidentiality in their dealings with each other and Wikileaks may have gone a little too far in breaching those limits.

In any case, yes, I would be happy to donate $50 to Wikileaks if Assange is extradited/rendered/spirited/'loaned' directly from Sweden to the US. If it does not occur within, say, a year after Assange either does his time OR is found not guilty, then I would be grateful if you could donate $50 to the Fred Hollows Foundation.

Cheers,

Joe

>>But everyone knows that this will not happen: Once landed in Sweden, Assange will be sent on the next plane to the USA<<

>>Nobody has a problem with Assange being found guilty of rape, not even Assange himself, but he will NOT be found guilty, and he will not be found innocent either: instead he will be sent straight away to the USA in accordance with a "prisoner exchange" treaty that Sweden has with the USA<<

You seem awfully certain of the outcome of events that have yet to transpire. What is the secret of your awesome precognitive abilities? And why don't you use them to win lotto?

Or are you just speculating about possible outcomes? Because I agree that this is one possible outcome: it just does't seem very probable.

>>Let's face it, the U.S. could take out Julian once he's in Sweden using its Presidential Assassination Squad (PAS) or by using a drone.<<

Because the PAS can't enter Britain? Because drones can't fly south of 55N so they to use diplomatic measures to maneuver him to a more northern location? Let's face it: if the U.S wanted Assange dead that much he'd already be rotting in a pine box.

Cheers,

Tony

Yuyutsu,

I might be wrong but it is possible that if Assange is taken to Sweden, charged with rape, found guilty, and does his time, he would have to be taken back either to Britain or to another country of his choice.

Not being a British citizen and having been found guilty of a serious crime, as a rapist, he would probably he deported from Britain, perhaps to Australia.

If the Yanks wanted to ping him, or at least give notice of such an intention, they might have to do it now before he goes to Sweden, i.e. register a complaint and have it put in the queue - or wait until he is brought back. But strangely, they don't seem to be rushing to do any of that: perhaps they are confident that, in the full glare of international publicity, they can take him out any time with a drone attack.

Arjay would have a reason, involving devilish cunning, why that might be so :)

Cheers,

Joe

sure thing Jo ... the Fred Hollows Foundation is a fantastic cause (i was worried you might make it the ALP or Liberal Party - which would have been difficult to stomach) ... and a year is more than fair ... and yes, i'm happy to change the T&C to 'if Assange is extradited to the US from from Sweden', you do WikiLeaks donation ... no extradition after a year means that i donate to the FHF ... if he does not last the year (unfortunate and unforeseeable accidents etc ...) the bet is incomplete ... is that OK for you?

and i agree that governments are entitled to some secrets ... although i believe that ALL documents should be released after a period of time (redacted if you must) ... and in the case of the docs that WikiLeaks released, the thing i found moist disturbing was the inaccuracy of the reports of civilian casualties ... these are facts of which the public (the taxpayers funding the wars) should be made aware so that they can make better informed choices at elections ... makes for some dispute about where to draw the line ...personally, i'm all for more government exposure rather than the current levels or less ... the reason for my stance is that there will be more open communication and polite dialogue when it's all out in the open (by necessity) which i suspect will provide more agreeable and considered outcomes ... it's what i have found in business and i expect that the same will apply at the international level ...

i would love to hear the arguments of anyone with differing views on this matter ... i am happy to change my position if the argument/evidence stacks up ...

I agree with David G. Australian government is wrong to not have protected him and to not complain with USA our alley of their wrong doing, as is tainting our integrity as a nation with relative consequences.
Australia sacrifice our best soldier, are dishonor as they work together, by the USA army Human Crime.
Their cover up is not different from the atrocity and lies done in many others country by them.
USA had done and is a great force for Human Right but is certainly tainted by many wrong doing.
How USA and others country are not condemn for the dealing with dictatorship: like the fallen Libya, Egyptian regime and country like Saudi Arabia where torture had been accurately well documented?
The American citizens are not informed of so much wrong doing, and like here they had not a real tool to confront our leaders when they are failing they promise or for wrong doing.
Democracy is not perfect! Abuse is a day business, Germany, Italy and many others nation had pay the cost for be silent and choice the wrong leader’s.
For me, I trust in Jesus who is alive.
Free Assang we need hero like him and the young man USA soldier, who is paying for the wrong of others .Him need a medal too.

... i dont think Jesus (or Julian for that matter) is going to come to the rescue luigi ... perhaps rather than divine intervention we should insist on government acting a bit more like (dare i say it) a responsible business (or at least a business that is held to account by the rules - not practices - of the ASX and ATSIC)...

... the way i see it, with government officials pandering to the electorate with populist crap like 'we are servants of the people' and 'the Australian electorate is my boss' (substitute US, British, Swedish etc ... anywhere pretending to be a democracy will do - i'm sure they all hear the same rhetoric) ... anyway, we should insist that they disclose spending by items (like what these wars are actually costing us) because as a taxpayer, it's me (and the rest of you guys who actually pay tax) who are footing the bill for such stunts ... and i cant say that i feel as though me money is being well spent ... or spent on the right thing .. and this is where WikiLeaks (and Julian being chief spokesperson) comes into it ...

supporting WikiAssange is supporting greater transparency of what the government is doing with their hard earned tax dollars ... that way i can feel as though i know where my money is going and they can continue to pretend we live in a democracy ... because at the moment we dont (by definition - 'electoral decisions made by an informed public' - as if!)...