if the Australian attorney general kowtows to American pressure to prosecute Assange for vague offenses, it will show up the Australian government in a very embarrassing light, as really just a mob of gofers for the U.S. with no core values or backbone of their own.

After all, Mr Assange was born and bred in North Qld, and if the government can't or won't stand up for their own citizens, then the rest of the electorate will realize just how subservient their government really is to the U.S.

Thats your opinion. This person is violating american security, he must face this in America.

What a great article!

Brian McNair's succinctly expressed opinion
and analysis state eloquently many of the
same observations that I've been making about
the Wikileaks/Assange circus.

Wikileaks is an inevitable and positive development
for world democracy. I think that the various
"authorities" who are currently pursuing Assange
are about to make the strategic error of making him
some kind of political martyr.

This is interesting stuff indeed.

Damn straight Wikileaks strengthens democracy. How else is a democracy supposed to function without information about politician's conduct in government- in their name and on their tax dollars?

It's no less ironic that the only country that practices a REAL democracy is the only one to take the democratic importance of Wikileaks seriously; THe rest are quickly spiraling down into jackboot fascism.

Quite frankly anyone who opposes wikileaks OPPOSES DEMOCRACY- and I dare anyone to prove me wrong.

I'm sure many will be offended- but if they were to stop and think they are clearly putting hot-blooded patriotism FAR above democratic rights.

And wasn't it one famous leader of the United States long ago that made a speech about "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" or something?

Obviously scared sheep disagree in a heart beat- even when there is no actual enemy in sight!

Finally.....some commonsense is slowly creeping into the picture.

Wikileaks strengthens democracy........and just like others that are loosing faith in Democracy.......men like this shall resurrected what greedy men have distroyed........ and then! and only then, shall peace return to us once again.

Until then.

BLUE

Excellent article, Brian.

Your point that Assange, "is merely the embodiment of a fundamental shift in the dynamics of power in the digital age." goes to heart of the present outrage expressed by those in power. They are ranting against a reality that was always going to catch up and engulf them. The loss of control inherent in this new dynamic threatens the very foundations these power structures are built upon.
Wikileaks has already taken on the shape of a benevolent Hydra. Those who represent power on any scale in the globalised world would be wise to accommodate it - to work with it instead of against it.

Excellent article. The whole controversy is sorting the sheep from the goats very satisfactorily. May I suggest that everyone and in particular "579" reads the American Declaration of Independence slowly and carefully before they make comments.

I would recommend Julian Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize. We haven't seen a better defender of democracy for years.

Wholly agree Brian - a well articulated piece.

"More important than their mildly anarchic dismantling of the pomposity and secrecy of western leaders, the leaks may well contribute to the slow, but unstoppable demise of the dwindling number of dictatorships for whom the control of information, and relentless lying, are essential tools of oppression."

There is great strength in that argument to support endeavours like Wikileaks and whistleblowers generally.

Access to information is the ammunition needed to sustain a strong democracy.

Pelican

You know what surprises me most about the leaked cables?

It's this.

There's nothing in there that surprised me. Mostly it confirmed suspicions I already had.

579

If the cables were that easy to steal we must suppose that any country with a half decent intelligence service must already have them. Apparently upwards of 100,000 people had access to the cables.

I think we are seeing cables that the Chinese intelligence service, the Russians and Al Qaeda saw months ago. In fact Assange and WikiLeaks has probably done the US Government a favour by showing them how easy it is to steal their cables.

Great article, many thanks to the author.

Lentaubman, I don't know how you can be so cynical about the contents of the cables - out of 250,00 only some 250 have been released thus far.

What matters as much as their content is the fact that Wikileaks has done this - they've informed the ordinary person without either the time or the necessary knowledge to access classified information. This is why the US government is so outraged and people want to kill Assange - they've lost control of the dissemination of information, and now everyone can know things those in power prefer to keep under the radar.

They operate on secrecy - about the most unimportant things - its the secrecy that matters to them and gives them power.Wikileaks has breached the secrecy.

The Australian Labour party, the party that stands for nothing. It's funny we vote for australian polys but our foreign policy is made by the US. Shame Gillard shame.

How is this for some lateral thinking; If Assange, were to operate as the free rebel agent his actions identify him as during the period of Australian engagement 1939-1945 for example, he would have been dealt with much more swiftly.

His actions display a huge disloyalty and not a lot of courage. Whatever we the citizen, think of our political leaders, I believe we have a duty to our Country and its security as a priority over displays of personal disapproval such as “Wikileaks”.

They have contributed little more than unnecessary high level embarrassment to Australia and its Allies, and for no gain.

http://www.news.com.au/world/assange-arrested-by-uk-police/story-e6frfkyi-1225967232654

Quotes from link:

In another strong attack against WikiLeaks, Prime Minister Julia Gillard argued the "foundation stone" of the website was "illegal".

Asked exactly what law either the website or Mr Assange had broken, Ms Gillard offered no direct answer.

"We've got the Australian Federal Police looking to see whether Australian laws have been broken, and then we've got the commonsense test about the gross irresponsibility of this conduct," Ms Gillard told reporters in Canberra.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis attacked Ms Gillard for her "clumsy" language.

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

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

An open letter to Ms Gillard, prominent academics, lawyers, politicians and journalists called on the government to protect Mr Assange from the possibility of an "extra-judicial" assassination.

The most telling aspect of this event is the fact that while officials are quick to label Assange as a terrorist there is no strong condemnation to calls for Assange's assasination from some 'government' extremists in the West.

How is this possible in a free society?

Pelican,

Welcome to the Clayton's version (The free society you have when you don't have a free society).
You are allowed all the liberty available as long as you play the game and abide by the rules.

Poirot:

What particular freedoms do you lack in this Country? I find your statement strange!

I would like to know what law Assange has violated.
Why is he being prosecuted?
He is yet to be prosecuted or even arraigned. Till then he should be considered a free man

socratease

diver dan,

I don't have the freedom to set up a site to facilitate the exposure of leaked documents (even though they depict the truth) because if I attempted such a thing, I would be pursued by those in authority armed with allegations of possible crimes that I might have committed - or laws that I potentially maybe could be breaking. That would not be playing the game.

I do have the freedom to sit tight and do or say nothing while someone like Assange is hounded and shut down for exposing the truth - apparently that is playing the game.

Remember Salman Rushdie, Satanic Verses an Fatwa Laws?

But Julian Assange has unforgiving enemies and no place to hide unless the Australian people takes this matter seriously and shuts up its politicians for good.

The latest definition of a terrorist: someone who tells you what your government is really doing.

Poirot is spot on.

Nobody disputes that there are circumstances in which governments need to keep secrets - the problem is, governments increasingly want to keep everything secret, and to thoroughly spin any information they do give out. Secrecy is their primary mode of operation.

Poirot

In theory, if a person (In this case Assange) continues with the act of intercourse after refusing a reasonable request for the use of a condom, then a crime has been committed:

In assange's case the circumstances surrounding the allegations of rape were initially unrelated to Wikileaks and are simply an opportune capital event for his opponents to plunder (of which he now has many in high places).

I repeat, I have little sympathy for Assange or his cause and personally consider his actions on all fronts foolish, thoughtless and, maybe one step further, “Undemocratic” and “Treacherous”

"In Assange's case the circumstances surrounding the allegations of rape were initially unrelated to Wikileaks...."

Well, of course they were! I suppose you also believe that Santa and his elves are at this moment up at the north pole busily preparing for Christmas.

Poirot

What I am saying is Assange did commit an offence. It does appear from the accounts of the woman concerned the offence was one of forced intercourse.

What you appear to imply from the fact that Assange has been charged with the offence of rape, is charges are a “beat-up” by the wounded parties of leaks of classified information from Wikileaks.

I contend, Assange shot himself in the foot by the initial act of stupidity, non-consensual sex, and so should “swing” for the crime. Stress; an act not at all related to Wikileaks, so I further reinforce my previously stated sentiments

Diver Dan, your comments are defamatory. Assange himself has yet to hear the charges against him.

You write:"It does appear from the accounts of the woman concerned the offence was one of forced intercourse."

Is this how we decide matters these days? Someone says somebody else did something and everyone says, Oh, OK she said he did it so let's hang him?

What is wrong with you?

And you dare to complain about feminists.

Great article Brian. It seems from Gillard's remarks for the benefit of the US, and McClelland's desire to find something, anything to charge Julian with, raises a number of awkward unanswered questions. Some have been raised in this thread.

I'd like to know how effective is the alternative to wikileaks or other leaked information? Can we hope to gain as good an insight into how the government really operates by following the official proccess for making applications through the new Federal Freedom of Information laws? Will Gillard create a culture of pro-active disclosure showing the public that she really does embrace transparency? Can the Shield laws for journalists be of any help to Julian Assage?

Things have taken a turn. Julian Assange is now in custody over Swedish claims of sexual misconduct. The Swedish government officials strongly claim that the request for Assange's extradition has no relation to the Wikileaks operation. Prominent journalists have stated that the information published by Wikileaks is available to any news media who are willing to pursue it. There are no significant revelations that are damaging to any government (as yet). However, it appears that the US has great concern that there may be some information accessed that the government does not want to be made public. If nothing else this will be a lesson to governments to be more cautious in their communications. Cyberspace can easily be hacked by professional hackers (whether they're Chinese, Russian, British, US, German, French, or any other). If there was significant damaging information foreign powers would have already taken advantage.

A little background to the Swedish allegations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange

Poirot:

Again, Thanks for the link. The plot thickens. And what a plot it is!

Poirot:

Check this out. It's riveting stuff:

http://newmatilda.com/2010/12/08/what-has-really-been-disclosed

By James O'Neill.

Julia Gillard condemned Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange as a "criminal" and promised co-operation with US authorities in their desire to shut down Assange and his website.

But yet Rudd and Howard have come out in defence of Assange. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/kevin-rudd-john-howard-speak-out-over-wikileaks-julian-assange/story-e6frev00-1225967838974

So does this mean they have without meaning to taken down the atheist female PM? If she changes her mind she will look weak if she sticks to what she has said she will be gone and the Australian population will stop any support there was for her currently. Really she needed better advice on this matter.

Rudd comes out with : "Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorized release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network," Rudd told Reuters.

"The Americans are responsible for that." Okay so we are not going to be allies with America. This is fine we all know that they like to play war games and frankly the rest of the world is sick of it. This is interesting from Howard: Mr Rudd's comments came as former prime minister John Howard said also that Mr Assange had not done anything wrong by publishing cables that contained "frank commentary".
Dont think they realised but they have in a way both supported Julian Assange. They have both showed America as a nation up, cant be good for ongoing relations now.
And now this from Gillard : "Kevin Rudd is a man who throughout his adult life has devoted himself to expertise in foreign policy," she said. So does this now mean since she has backed away from her current position she now looks weak yeh pretty much and very uninformed on what is going on. I am curious as to what Abbott thinks about all of this.