For the staunch proponent of the Australian Constitution that OLO userID 'DIS' is on record as being, I am a little perplexed by his reference to Assange as dealing in stolen property, coupled as it is with what seems an inference that Assange has done such within Australian jurisdiction.

Does Australian law in this respect have extra-territorial application, extra-territoriality that the Federal Attorney-General has not appeared to have laid any claim to in his statements to the Australian public regarding Assange?




It is interesting that the one WikiLeaks cable that I have looked at (this one: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/11/08STOCKHOLM748.html ) seems to tell a story, if not of the participation of some members of the Swedish government in actual circumvention of the Swedish Constitution as it may apply to information gathering and exchange as it may relate to Swedish citizens, at least of the routine expectation on the part of US diplomatic staff that circumvention of the constitutions of friendly states is something the US should be able to pursue with impunity in connivance with politicians and senior officials within such states.

Could it be that this seeming expectation derives from a culture of routine willingness within the US executive government to seek to circumvent the provisions of their own US Constitution?

That one may so interpret this cable is all the more alarming because, having failed to secure the type of agreement sought with Sweden because of both the likely effect of recognised Swedish constitutional prohibitions, and an assessment by Sweden of being at low risk of becoming a terrorist target, at a time when the US is exploring all avenues whereby it may get its hands on Assange (whose extradition is currently sought by Sweden), Sweden just happens to sustain the first-ever terrorist attack upon its soil.




The claimed terrorist was a Swedish citizen. Is the message to be derived one that, despite its Constitution, Sweden really does need an HSPD-6 style information exchange/extradition agreement with the US? If so, who sent that message, and what does it make them?

"Assange likens nations and corporations to massive conspiracies, which need to be brought down in their entirety."

How is it in the interests of the people that one pervert's view of organisations somehow means all organisations must be destroyed? The man is an idiot, and the author of this article is an idiot to enable him. As if the operations of the US environmental protection authorities or Google are the equivalent of Mugabe's ZANU government or the Russian oligarchy.

Tar, feathers, Assange: some assembly required.

Jonathon Ariel shows us that being protected in free speech doesn't mean the speech is of any worth.

I thank Alice Thermopolis for the specific link to the David Burchell quotation she posted earlier. The further quotation from the same article she posted on Thursday, 6 January 2011 at 11:50:39 AM, deserves some comment. Burchell says:

"Millions of dollars may be spent, we are told,
on the high-profile legal team that will propel
Assange's defence against serious sexual allegations
in Sweden, allegations that have been burlesqued by
his rock-chick supporters, much in the manner of
Roman Polanski."

The now governmentally-resuscitated 'serious sexual allegations in Sweden' against Assange have not been 'burlesqued by rock-chick supporters' so much as they have had their credibility publicly undermined by an electronic trail on the internet left by one of the alleged complainants, an electronic trail that paints a picture of circumstances seemingly at great variance with those of the claimed sexual improprieties allegations, an electronic trail in respect to which (unsuccessful) attempts have been made to remove it from public view. This post on another thread amplifies: http://bit.ly/fPK3ww

(Neither was the attempted extradition of Polanski by the US from Switzerland brought undone by the '[burlesquing] of rock-chick supporters', but rather by the refusal of US officials to permit Swiss authorities to view, in Switzerland, before any decision as to extradition was made, the relevant California court and custodial records from 1977 that supposedly substantiated the alleged fugitive status of Polanski upon which his extradition was being sought. The Swiss accordingly declined to extradite Polanski. http://bit.ly/bJRJ0p )

Far from millions of dollars being required to be spent by anybody on a high-profile legal defence of Assange against Swedish extradition and sexual impropriety charges seemingly as yet not laid, I ask why is not the whole issue of these now-irrepairably-compromised matters the subject of direct diplomatic negotiation between Australia and Sweden to the end of having any charges dropped and the extradition request for Assange from the UK withdrawn?

Any Australian citizen in such circumstances deserves no less from the Australian government. This one's name happens to be Assange, not Morant.

Forrest gump,

Noone in gov't is foolish enough to believe Assange's motives were honourable when he released vast quantities of the US gov'ts information. He did it, regardless of his public statements, to hurt the US. Why would the Australian gov't, or the Australian people be interested in going above and beyond to help an individual who has tried to harm our closest ally?

I and the majority of Australians find Assange himself repugnant, and have no support for his radical philosophy. Assange has effectively positioned himself as an enemy of the US, and Australia too.

The gov't has no mandate from the public to rush to his defense. He has the court to defend himself and he can avail himself of that redress. He has the consular support he is entitled too. His fate is his own repsonsibility. Let him face court. If he is innocent he will be fine.

It is grotesque in the extreme to suggest that the Aust gov't should intervene to help Assange avoid a sexual assault case. You think the case has no merit? You could save Australian juries an awful lot of time, and summarily dismiss all those cases you decide (from the comfort of your computer room) have no merit.

Paul:
<I and the majority of Australians find Assange himself repugnant, and have no support for his radical philosophy. Assange has effectively positioned himself as an enemy of the US, and Australia too>

I'd like to take a look at your research, Paul, I have the impression the vast majority support Assange.
I "would" vote Assange as Australian of the year, but if Paul is correct, surely the more honourable prize would be "UnAustralian of the Year"? Certainly Assange is no ocker!

Isn't sexual misconduct now the standard pretext for political witch-hunts? From Bill Clinton to Anwar Ibrahim to Silvio Berlusconi, it's an innuendo that strikes just the right note of abstract culpability. You don't even have to offend directly, downloading salacious images will do. It's just as well the thought police don't have access to just how widespread "sexual misconduct" is!
Assange for unAustralian fo the year, oi oi oi!

Squeers' suggestion that the proposed award for Assange should perhaps be "UnAustralian of the Year" provides us with a good opportunity to remind ourselves that Jonathan Ariel is talking about The Australian newspaper's annual award of 'Australian of the Year', not the award going by the same title made by the National Australia Day Council. The significance of this distinction is highlighted by Ariel's statement, in the sixth-last paragraph of the article, that:

"While to date [Assange] hasn’t completely changed
journalism, he has made a magnificent start."




The specific achievement for which Jonathan Ariel proposes Assange for The Australian's award he encapsulates toward the end of his article, thus:

"What are our instincts about government? Will we be
smitten with the Stockholm Syndrome and see governments
as opaque as they are becoming more and more transparent?
Or will we celebrate that someone, somehow displayed
the courage and applied the technology to unmask those
in the West who deceive their electorates both in times
of peace and in times of war, for what is most likely
their personal gain.

It is hoped that Assange will soon extend his innovation
of an electronic drop box to courageous men and women in
other nations, ..... By doing so, Assange will remove the
“anti-American” pejorative prefix that is currently perhaps
unfairly ascribed to him."




Jonathan J Ariel has laid out the tatami matting, the towels, the katana, and, most significant of all, the wakizashi, the short sword.

There has been a failure, for which there should perhaps now be atonement.

The only question is as to which entity should be composing the Haiku*, and sitting, figuratively speaking, cross-legged on the mat: The Australian, the world's 'free press', or the bulk of the profession of journalism?

Again I find myself in disagreement with DIS: I don't think most journalists like Assange at all. I think they feel Assange has shown them up. Something Lord Hailsham once said seems relevant: http://bit.ly/gWaJA5




*An haiku suggestion:

Stockholm blast. Glass shards.
Fall scene in Aftonbladet.
Carl's tweet builds the frame?