JamesH says: "Here is the latest".

With all due respect, JamesH, something like that was always on the cards to come out. Indeed, it could even be held that the elicitation of such may have been something anticipated by the article author, but it would seem a pity to dwell upon speculations as to what we are told is a Swedish civil matter.

I suggest that the 'latest thing' is what is claimed to have been tweeted on Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt's Twitter account with the words:

"Most worrying attempt at terrorist attack
in crowded part of central Stockholm. Failed
- but could have been truly catastrophic..."

This is the link to the story in The Australian: http://bit.ly/igjaZD

An unbelievable fizzer of a suicide bomber attack by what are accepted to be, on the basis of other attacks elsewhere in the world, the world's experts at destructive suicide bomber attacks! Presumably the attack was made to place in the Swedish public consciousness that what is at issue in the Assange extradition is not a civil matter involving alleged sexual improprieties in Sweden, but one of Terrorism conducted in the UK; not one of US government lax document security, but of International Espionage cleverly stealing information despite the US' best efforts at keeping it secret.

I must admit the first thing to come to my mind was the Hilton bombing in Sydney, with all the suspicion and innuendo that it was an Australian security service exercise that went wrong. My second thought was as to from where the deceased in Stockholm had been 'rendered', and of what was he allegedly guilty (apart from being found dead near a terrorist bomb blast site) prior to such 'rendition'?

Does anyone know whether Julian Assange, as an Australian citizen in custody in the UK but having broken no UK law, is subject to the provisions of the UK Extradition Act 2003 as they apply to any extradition request for Assange the UK government might receive from the US?

Or must Assange's extradition, if justified, be sought from Australia?

Good points, Forrest,

Messing with the public's perception is an art. The Wikileaks phenomenon is widely held by most ordinary people as a movement upholding truth and openness.
The car bomb has been labelled a "terrorist attack". Even just a waft of association in the minds of the public suggesting a link between support for Assange and terrorism would be in the interests of those who would prefer to see Wikileaks and its ilk shut down.

Well, Poirot, there are always at least two ways we can go:

* take what we hear at face value, but be alert to all the possibilities (on both sides, Poirot) of misinformation;

or

* assume that nothing is as it seems - there is (probably) always a hidden hand behind everything.

The problem with the paranoid approach is its infinite regression - who is behind these 'trumped-up' charges against Assange ? Who is REALLY behind these supposed terrorist attacks in Stockholm ? And if it is obviously the Swedish secret police, who is REALLY behind THEM ? The CIA ? MI5 ? Or did al-Qa'ida deliberately bungle these attacks in order to falsely implicate the Swedish secret police/CIA/MI5 etc. ? Or did the Swedish secret police etc. deliberately bungle the attacks, in order to ridicule al-Qa'ida ?

And who is REALLY manipulating the Swedes ? Notice that the Chinese always come out of these things squeaky clean - now why is that ? Because they have nothing to do with it all ? Pleeeeeease ! Isn't that exactly what they would WANT you to think ? And what's more, in upper case ?

And of course, who is REALLY behind the Chinese ?

So I prefer the first approach, and trust to my scepticism about the motives of ALL players, of the media, various police and government forces, of the multitude of tanty groups.

Assange has been charged with - from surely a feminist point of view - serious crimes. Let the courts decide, always suspecting that there will be pressure from various forces on the judges and God knows what else. Let the women have their day in court, even if the judgment goes against him.

Oh, I'm SO naive !

Joe

With women being able to pull out of sex at any stage it wouldn't be hard to make a charge stick. Not the right way to go about information collecting or sharing.

579,

Well ..... yes ..... it's called 'consent' ..... without consent, it can be called 'rape'.

Thanks for all those images, by the way :)

Joe

Lets leave it to the courts to decide.

Joseph Stalin held trials for people who were accused of being a dissident. If I recall correctly very few were found innocent.

Recently there have been changes to the Australian legal system in some states where men accused of rape must prove their innocence.

Moral of the story is never, ever sleep with a swedish feminist or you might just as well hang yourself.