Sorry, hadn't finished that post - there is no question of taxpayers funding Assange's defense in the Swedish matter - he's receiving the consular assistance any Australian is entitled to - and as he can't be charged on any other matter in this country or the US, I don't know what you are worrying about.

But in the event of all the media outlets who published the leaked documents being charged with something, I think my tax dollars would be very well spent contributing to their defense.

However as the charges would most likely be brought by the government, it's not likely they'll be using public money to defend the action as well.

It appears that the Gillard Government is sticking to its guns on this one:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-acts-illegal-gillard-government/story-fn775xjq-1225968584365

Is there a statute that proscribes the publication of diplomatic cables, either here or in the U.S.?
The governments in both countries seem to be desperately seeking any avenue to find one. Might prove a bit of a challenge according to this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

I see two areas of bitter sweet irony building here stemming from the leaks.

The thousands of diplomatic documents must cover every conceivable topic, because that’s what diplomats do. So there must be diplomatic cables covering not only security, diplomacy and military actions, but also such topics as the GFC, EU Economic Policy, the UN and all its agencies, Bank world, international trade and NATO just for starters?

Irony Number 1. If all these topics and many more are indeed covered, who is deciding what and when it is released? Is it possible that Wikileaks is at the very least being “selective” or at worst “censoring” in support of its own agenda?

Time will tell I suppose when we look for other hot topics to be covered, but wouldn’t it be “ironic” if the bastion of free speech was not covering all the topics in the diplomatic world.

The civil rights movement, media and social activists are getting hot under the collar about the persecution of Julian, and I do have serious issues as to whether or not he is getting a fair go. However, wouldn’t it be interesting if these documents also covered, as they surely must, the hot topic of climate change at a diplomatic level? Unimaginable this topic is not covered between diplomats; it has been a diplomatic topic since Kyoto.

Irony Number 2.

If the diplomatic dialogue does cover climate change in the same vein as other topics, telling the truth, then the very people defending Wikileaks might just be the ones with the most to lose.

I don’t have a problem with Wikileaks publishing diplomatic papers and I don’t know what periods they cover, but I do know that there is much “power” in having such information and publishing it. We also know that power corrupts and most of us suspect that there is an agenda, a volatile combination?

250,000 documents to go however, if these topics don’t get a mention from Julian, we might just have to question what “truth” we are being asked to “believe”.

C’mon Julian, more topics please.

Raycom
Are you suggesting that whoever leaked the diplomatic emails to Wikileaks was not a government official?

Whoever it was might not been as high up the government food chain as the leaker to Oakes but he or she was doing it to embarrass the government or achieve a political aim as was the leaker to Oakes.

Laurie Oakes just topped the Walkley Awards for his effort. But then, Assange might make Time's Man of the year.