It's good that the topic of Assange was raised and that the public is reminded that Julia Gillard and Bob Carr are sitting on their hands.

They are not in my humble opinion lackies of the US Government, they are just lilly livered, overpaid and useless. NSW saw just how useless "Dubai" Bob Carr was as Premier, where he oversaw the disintegration of public infrastructure when not busy giving the nod to building the unsightly 'toaster' abutting the Opera House. And shamelessly doing so in the 'caretaker period'.

The article disappoints by emphasising whether or not Assange should be answerable to Swedish law. The writer indicates that he should not because Swedish "justice" differs significantly from Australian justice. A key argument in favor of the writer, but she failed to mention, is that as a foreigner, Assange will be denied bail, for an indefinite period.

Arguing that in Sweden Assange's rights differ from those of alleged criminals in Australia is a poor argument.

If I travel to Qatar with drugs in my luggage I will be beheaded. Period. The fact that had I committed the act of drug smuggling/possession in Australia an Australian court may send me to gaol with 3 square meals a day for 25 years is irrelevant poppycock.

The real argument in favour of Assange is that he did exactly what newspapers worldwide did, such as the NY Times, the Guardian, El Pais etc.
He published.

Why are proprietors and editors of THOSE publications not the subject of interest by the relevant authorities? Could it be that they have deeper pockets that Assange and are more intimately connected to the levers of governments across the world?

Assange is singled out unfairly. That's the crux of the matter.

>>Everyone knows that the rape allegations are only a pretext to send Assange to the USA to be executed there for embarrassing their leaders.<<

Okay Yuyutsu: time for a refresher course in geography. Here is a link to a world map:

http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/hobodyer-large.jpg

See the big purple country in the bottom left of the map just above Canada? That's the USA. That's the country whose leaders Assange embarrassed and where the bad men who supposedly want to execute Assange live. They aren't making rape allegations or trying to extradite Assange because they don't have a case to do so.

Now you see the little yellow country in the bottom right of the map just off to the west of Russia? That's Sweden. That's the country we're talking about: it's the one the rape allegations are coming from and the one that wants to extradite Assange. I don't think Sweden has the death penalty.

Just remember that one is purple and big and the other is small and yellow. That way you shouldn't have too much trouble remembering that they are two different countries and you might stop trying to conflate the two - a notion that a lot of Swedes would take offence to.

>>This should be recognized for what it is - an act of war.<<

No it isn't: this is an act of war.

>>Australia should send a helicopter with Australian commandos, either to the UK or to Sweden, to snatch Assange and bring him to the safety of an Australian navy ship or submarine. If this fails, then the next step would be to detain Swedish dimplomats and inform the Swedish government that if Assange is sent to the USA, then the fate of these diplomats will be identical to his.<<

As well as being incredibly stupid and immature. Thank God our Government live in the real world and so have the sense not to base their foreign relations on Hollywood action movies: commandos abseiling from helicopters and rogue Governments seizing foreign diplomats as hostages make exciting films but lousy policy.

Cheers,

Tony

People really do not read articles do they? Julian Assange is not facing any charges in Sweden, he has not been charged with anything, they merely claim they want to interview him which can be done in London.

Or from the space station or the bottom of the sea but does not require his forced extradition to Sweden or anywhere else.

But for anyone in Australia to claim he is treated worse than Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks with even less care by the Howard mob certainly destroys their credibility.

And in a nation that allows public servants to drag men, women and babies off the streets and jail them for life without charge because another public servant says so is not a nation that agrees with the rule of law and justice and has no moral high ground to stand on.

Very well put, Marilyn Shepherd, and several others of similar ilk. Australia is not, unfortunately, an independent nation, it is wholly subservient to the USA through ANZUS, Howard's "free" trade agreement, and the forelock tugging penchant of successive prime ministers. It's not going to change, We'll go to war for them, Buy their inferior and over priced equipment, host their armies, make an enemy of our best trading partner... anything at all because we love them. Gillard said that in her first speech as PM. We voted these idiots into office, so we're getting the government we deserve.

It seems strange that many of the posters here are in favour of executive interference in the legal process in the case of Assange, but would otherwise strenuously defend the separation of powers between executive and judiciary (eg Marilyn and the Thomson case).

This shows an unfortunate flexibility consistent with the concept of ends justifying means. If advocating political interfence from the left to support Assange, you can hardly complain about the mechanism if the US moves similarly from the right against him. I have not seen evidence of US moves to date, despite wild allegations.

Assange has been provided with reasonable support from the Australian government given his own substantial resources (intellectually and financially). One could usefully compare it with the Corby case. He has exhausted the extensive appeals mechanism available in his country of asylum (Britain), and will now involuntarily move into the direct jurisdiction of Sweden.

The Swedish legal system is different from the common law based system of the Anglo countries, but do these posters suggest that simply on this basis it is inferior? If so they are essentially impugning the legal systems of the entire European Union outside the UK, as these are all fundamentally similar.

Swedish law and proceedures need to be allowed to act without attempts at external political interference. This is a reasonable general rule, whether you feel politically advantaged or disadvantaged by it in specific cases (Assange vs Thomson).

Dear Newtus,

<<Swedish law and proceedures need to be allowed to act without attempts at external political interference.>>

But everyone knows that this will not happen: Once landed in Sweden, Assange will be sent on the next plane to the USA - as far as Sweden is concerned, this will be the end of the road, Sweden never really wanted to try Assange and will not even bother to try him there.

What surprises me is that you consider Assange as "left": Assange has embarrassed all world leaders, left right and center, he stands for freedom while the Left in general stands for government control.