An excellent paper; informative, well-researched and concerning.

There is, however, the problem that a lazy, self-reflecting and entertainment-oriented popular media will be no more responsive than in the case of David Hicks.

Take the ABC’S The Drum of June 22, when international law expert Ben Saul from Sydney Law School reminded viewers that Australia could not extradite citizens for crimes carrying the death penalty; he also emphasised that, like most other nations, it would not extradite for ‘political’ offences. It was clear he thought this sufficient to protect Assange if he returned to Australia. But it is also clear he was talking about best international practice, not Assange’s legal rights.

While this assurance seemed to satisfy members of the panel, and suggest that Assange’s fears might be contrived or unrealistic, it means nothing if the US views espionage (or whatever is the chosen offence) as a serious national security crime, and the Australian Government will not challenge the views of an important ally.

To my knowledge no journalist has yet put to the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General the question uppermost in the public mind:
Will the Government give an assurance it will not deport him to the US for actions based on his role as publisher of Wikileaks, or for any alleged offence which is not a crime in Australian Law?

The latter condition appears to be standard if not universal in extradition treaties, and would seem to be a good practical test of whether the extradition is ‘political’.

Max Atkinson

Thank you Kellie for an important and well argued article. The fact that the US government has obtained an sealed indictment is hardly a secret as any reader of the Washington Post knows. The Australian government is, yet again, playing fast and loose with the truth. They clearly place their subservient role to the US above their duty to an Australian citizen. Assange is right to fear extradition to Sweden, not because Swedish law holds any terrors but because of Sweden's proven track record of also kowtowing to the Americans and extraditing persons for political reasons. They recently had to pay substantial compensation to two such victims of their rendering who suffered torture as a consequence and who were in fact innocent of any crime.
If Assange does get sent to Sweden he will not be safe from extradition under Swedish law even though Swedish law prohibits (as does Australian law) extradition to a country where the person may face the death penalty. The Americans will simply give an assurance that Assange will not face the death penalty.
It is entirely possible that Assange may never be prosecuted but simply locked up indefinitely without charge or trial under their now well established practice of detaining persons indefinitely without charge or trial.
Unfortunately most of our media and politicians have an outmoded view of American "justice". I recommend reading Glenn Greenwald's excellent blog on Salon.com for insights into how far the US has fallen from standards of justice that most intelligent Australians would regard as a prerequisite for a democratic society under the rule of law.
I hope you are right Kellie and that Ecuador does do the right thing by Assange.

Mere speculation and anti-American bigotry.

Assange is an accused sex offender and should face justice.

Both Sweden and the US have highly developed criminal justice systems. Compared to Australia (Cornelia Rau, anyone?) they are excellent.

...I have little sympathy for Assange at all. There are two sides to this argument conveniently ignored by those bleating loudest for Assanges personal welfare.

...Happy I am to see this criminal rounded up.

@DavidL Assange is not an "accused sex offender". The Swedish request for extradition is to question him in respect of allegations made by two women.
It really is rather tiresome to have legitimate criticism based on facts described as "anti-American". As Keynes said, you are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.

@ Diver Dan. You are happy to refer to "two sides to this argument" but it is notable in your posts that only one side is ever presented. You also refer to Assange as "this criminal". He has not been charged with any crime much less convicted. You would probably regard that as a technicality from a bleeding heart liberal. Fortunately you are not in a posiiton (hopefully) to actually have any influence in the judicial process under way.

Assange a journalist?
Well, in the first instant a journalist will do jail time, rather than reveal his/her sources! Assange's source rots in jail! Strike one.
Secondly, Any journalist worthy of the title validates, the facts and ensures no lives, will be put in jeopardy or threatened by the publication of any information! Assange's publish and be dammed approach, put real lives at real risk! Strike two.
No bona fide Journalist, will knowingly publish material covered by his/or her nation's official secrets act. Strike three.
The corporate world probably has more secrets and does far more harm to many more people, particularly those still eking out an existence in depressed penury, than any of the diplomats and their private confidential musings, as exposed by Assange.
If any of Assange's conspiracy theories were founded on any fact, then it is easier for the US to extradite from an ally like Great Britain, than a non aligned Sweden!
Assange has used every means at his disposal, including phoning his former female Swedish female employees, to plead with them to drop their action.
He claims he had consential sex with both of these former employees. However, in Sweden, consent is immediately legally withdrawn, if the male refuses to withdraw and put on a condom.
Assange was born in Townsville, attended 37 schools around Australia, was a university drop out, and choose a life of cyber crime hacking, [stealing personal private information,] for some time, before developing Wikileaks.
He is not a hero publisher, exposing at great personal risk, corporate crime and criminals, whose multi trillion dollar crimes, do far more harm, to many more people, than almost any sovereign nation?
Assange, in my view, is just a petty criminal/vigilante, trying with every means at his disposal, to simply avoid facing the music in Sweden!
Hardly the actions of a truly innocent or falsely accused man.
Moreover, the article is, I believe, hardly any more honest than the speculative conjecture and or conspiracy theories, that form its entire foundation.
Rhrosty.