Food for thought: One of the women who filed charges against Julian Assange states she is a christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion on the left political scene. She's previously been in charge of equality issues for the student union of a University - a job she won an award for. Today she works for a Brotherhood Movement. On her own blog she describes herself: 'A political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur, and freelance writer with special knowledge within faith and politics, gender equality issues, feminism, and Latin America.'

On Saturday 14 August at 14:00 she wrote the following on her Twitter account.

'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'

Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00) she writes again at Twitter.

'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'

When she files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets are removed. Why? It's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their mobile phones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?

If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night of 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that she really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation. You can't divine in the tweets that she thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by her to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match her story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them. But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches-doing this has revealed the above, the plot thickens!

For one of the most informative articles to date on what Wikileaks has actually achieved, read *Wikileaks, the web and the power of the people,* by Dan Olden, on ABC 's The Drum today.

Instead of all this prurient, unsavoury and totally speculative low level gossip about a situation that only two people know the truth of, learning just what Wikileaks is bringing to the world might be of more interest.

Leave the sexual assault charges to the courts. Like I said, only two people know the truth of that encounter and they'll have to put their respective cases for the Swedish courts to judge.

Whatever the outcome, it won't change what Wikileaks has achieved, though there's plenty of people hoping the outcome will discredit them.

I'm beginning to wonder if the authors who are focusing on the sexual aspect of the situation do so because it's easy, and they can't get their heads around anything more demanding.

I mean, why go there? Go there when justice has been done, not before its even had a chance.

There's also a very good article on the Drum today about exactly what I'm saying.

briar, things seemed to be civil till someone mentioned sarah palin (accues of demaniding murder)and then all hell broke loose (someone challanged that) .. what are we all going to do when she's president? (that's just a joke ok, so everyone calm down)

Assange is in a mess, pretty well all of his own making, what on earth is he doing sleeping with people he works with, and publishing stuff he knows will annoy people in the extreme .. if that was me I would have STFU and gone to ground, not started holding press conferences, bragging, threatening legal action against julia gillard .. he's an attention whore.

he seems to have a poor sense of judgment on some things and a very different sense of justice on others, he wants to publish everyone else's data, but doesn't want his own private information (home address) published, nor does he want details of his swiss bank accounts published .. so where is his sense of openness now?

it will be interesting to see what happens

the yanks are not stupid, they know he has distributed his mother load, so they know there is no big deal in nailing him .. maybe that's a distraction, and the big game is somewhere else ..

Oh my god, rpg. I give up.

Can nobody see beyond Julian Assange's personality?

Look at any high achiever and you'll find something you don't like.
Actually, look at any human being and you'll find something you don't like. It's just more obvious and more up for discussion with a public figure.
Especially if it's about sex.

If he's guilty he'll be punished.
If he isn't he won't.
If the system judging him is unjust who knows what will go down?

We ordinary people will still be a whole lot better informed about how power works in this world because of what Wikileaks has started.

To paraphrase Sarah Palin: Leak, baby, leak.

"Why would anyone believe that the Swedish charges against Julian Assange are part of an international conspiracy?"

'Coz folk like conspiracy theories a good deal more than they like empirical data. This is why folk believe that the moon landing was shot in a studio, that the U.S. government blew up the WTC, that Opus Dei killed JFK, and that the charges against Julian are part of a conspiracy.

Because they're idiots.

I think that Israel intelligence sources are feeding Assange perhaps without his knowledge of the real source.The info seems pointed in a particular direction.Nothing really ground breaking has been revealed.We all know pollies lie and have delusions of grandeur.

The Mark Arbib revelations are aimed at discrediting the Labor Party.Israel desperately wants to go to war with Iran using the USA as their agent.Labor traditionally is against wars but the Liberals are more likely to fall into line with the war mongering neo-cons.

Study carefully the inflection and tone of these leaks.Who benefits?