Poirot
You are not living up to the rigorous approach of your namesake. Again, I did not say that Assange stole the documents.

Raycom
In the recent federal election Laurie Oakes released leaked confidential cabinet information.
What would you propose he be charged with?

Raycom
You have the onus of proof back-the-front.

Talking of the onus of proof being back to front, I totally agree with Independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who today said that …

< Julia Gillard is showing contempt for the rule of law by failing to give Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange the presumption of innocence. >

He said;

< I believe the Prime Minister is showing a contempt for the rule of law - the way she has ruled out the presumption of innocence and instead there seems to be a presumption of guilt when it comes to Mr Assange, >

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/09/3089510.htm?section=justin

Quite amazingly, Kevin Rudd has today come out with a much more reasonable approach than Gillard; defending Mr Assange and diverting the blame to the Americans!

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/1208/Australia-s-Kevin-Rudd-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-not-responsible-for-cable-release

Foyle
As the confidential cabinet information was probably leaked by a Government official, which is not unusual, why are you suggesting that Laurie Oakes be charged?

Raycom - In his Quarterly Essay on Kevin Rudd, author David Marr revealed that the former PM observed that we were being ratf*ed in Copenhagen by the ratf*ing Chinese.

This is not dissimilar to the chatter in the leaked cables.

Should we "charge" David Marr? Or whoever leaked this information to him?

Assange has done nothing more than what every newspaper does when it gets a scoop. Just on a bigger scale because he was given a bigger scoop.

Why not suggest charging the Guardian, the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald for publishing this leaked material? Why just Assange?

That is, if there was any law under which to charge them, which there isn't.