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.

I have mixed feelings about Assange.

The general principle of full transparency and revealing the machinations of governments is to be encouraged with some major provisos, the main one being placing other people in harm's way and or jeopardising national security; a rather amorphous term which can crystallise into dire consequences very quickly.

Did Assange's actions contravene either of those 2 prohibitions; were lives lost as a result of the leaks? The author of this article has not considered this. Perhaps she should have read Tom Coghland's accounts in the Times about how NATO informants in Afghan had been exposed by the Wikileaks.

Assange was made aware of the risk to these informants and responded by saying:

"He claimed that many informers in Afghanistan were “acting in a criminal way” by sharing false information with Nato authorities.

He insisted that any risk to informants’ lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information."

This is not the response of a responsible journalist; it is the response of a moral snob more concerned with his own ideology then other people.

The Taliban of course said they would hunt down anyone named in the Wikileaks.

In respect of the sexual assault charges in Sweden the Guardian’s account is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

The author of the article has not referred to these serious charges. Surely the claims of TWO women cannot be dismissed out of hand?

Assange says the womens' claims are politically motivated; how can that be; they are his supporters and former admirers; the women share his politics.

What does the author have to say about this?

Another inconvenience truth!
How many hackers has Sweden extradited to the US? A: 0
How many hackers has the UK extradited to the US? A: around about 7

If the US does have a sealed indictment, it probably has more to do with Manning, rather than Assange anyway.

I tend agree with the assessments of Cohenite & Rhrosty.

C: “’He insisted that any risk to informants’ lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information.’
This is not the response of a responsible journalist; it is the response of a moral snob more concerned with his own ideology then other people.”

R:“He is not a hero publisher, exposing at great personal risk, corporate crime and criminals”

Very well put.

It's amazing how many Australians belong to the Imperial America cheer squad. Yes, the spread of American military bases across the world even to the Cocus Islands doesn't cause a murmur of discontent.

Then the American use of torture and rendition and cages, depleted uranium and white phosphorous and cluster bombs and drones, etc, doesn't phase the average Australian at all either. It's like 90% of Australians are still living in a 1945 mindset.

They can't get their minds around the fact that the U.S. has changed, that it is trying to dominate the whole world with its enormous army, that it is trying to push China and Russia to the margins, deprive them of scarce resources, weaken them.

Thus the scene is set for a nuclear war because China and Russia will not stand by and allow the U.S. to run the world for its own benefit and why should they.

Wake up, Australians. The Yanks are on our soil thanks to Julia and they will take over our country as quick as a wink.

The wolf is in our hen house!

"Imperial America cheer squad"

What a load of baloney. The yanks sometimes do bad things, usually for good intentions; but one thing you can be sure of, they'll get found out.

Now, tell me some of the bad things China and Russia have done and are doing, and how we are going to find out about them.

I think people who criticise the US, without ever noting the far greater outrages committed in the despotic and oppressive societies are cowards and hypocrites.

If you think the US is so bad, go over there, run for election and change the place. You can do that you know. But see how far you get if you go to China and Russia and try a similar stunt.

It amazes me how so many morons on this article continue to see the USA as being the land of liberty and democracy.

Bush had the Patriot Act ready to go before 911.This act removed the right for a trial and legal rep if you were deemed to be a terrorist.

Obama then brings in Preventative Dentention,ie if you have no even committed a terrorist act but are suspected of being such,you too can be held indefinetly without trial or legal rep.

Then Obama legalises assassination of suspected terrorists.Obama's latest is the National Defence Authoristion Act which gives the US Military the power to arrest anyone in the West and detain them indefinetly with no trial or legal rep.

Are these not the hallmarks of a fascist state? Google Naomi Wolf's ten steps to fascism.The last is to suspend the rule of law.The USA has now passed the first 9.

This article states--<Can't the government see that it's Groundhog Day? There is a difficult election coming up and what we’re seeing is a repeat of the David Hicks case. We have a government that seems to think it can blindly ignore or fudge its way out of a situation like this, as former Prime Minister John Howard initially did with Hicks,

If it turns out that Assange did commit the offense he is accused of in Sweden, then he alone is responsible for his extradition to Sweden.

David Hicks –“If you fly with the crows you get shot down with the crows”
David Hicks in his own letters home spoke of his involvement in a raid on the village of Kashmir to force the people to accept the Muslim religion. People were killed in that raid. Hicks is just another silly, spoilt, idealist, raised on the Western Teat
of plenty, who wants to run back to the West with his tail between his legs when things get too tough.

Notice he didn’t really want to spend the rest of his life in Afghanistan or India. When he realized he might not have the choice of coming home again. Why didn’t he seek Asylum from them or at least go back there when he obtained his freedom.
I’ll bet the first chance Assange gets to hightail it back to the West when all the heat dies down he won’t be able to get back fast enough.

These blokes are like silly schoolboys with their hippy, socialist, anti-Western ideas. Their actions in breaking their necks to come back and live in the West speak volumes.

"Bush had the Patriot Act ready to go before 911"

No he didn't.

Naomi Woolfe is an idiot; her first step is ridiculous:

"1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy"

Right; and Islamists are just a bunch of misunderstood, basically nice people with some genuine grievances.

And her number 8 is hysterical:

"8. Control the press"

How does that sit with Finkelstein?

Cohenite,have you not seen Project for a new american century? PNAC.

Zibigniw Brezezinski said in his book 'Grand Chessboard' "What we need is a truely massive and widely perceived direct external threat." They needed terrorism to bring in their new facist New World Order.

http://www.ae911truth.org/ Here is the scientific proof that 911 was an inside job.

Here are hundreds of professionals/Govt leaders etc asking for a proper enquiry and voicing their serious doubts http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ There was no way thet the Patriot Act could have been ready so soon after 911.

Excellent and therapeutic article which may have restored my will to live.

As for the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange try: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/#comments

Anyone who bothers to familiarize themselves with the sequence of events leading up to Sweden's desire to extradite Julian will find it difficult to take the proposed charges seriously. Sweden's reluctance to offer Julian any assurances against subsequent US extradition and their refusal to interview him in England further raises suspicion and concern.

Once, senior US political and military figures decided to publicly state Julian was a terrorist, calling for his assassination, amongst other extreme outbursts, the Australian government had an obligation to become involved beyond mere "consular assistance".

By seeking asylum to Equador, public humiliation for the Australian, Swedish and the US government's becomes the most probable endgame to this drama. The Swedish case is pathetic. The US case against Assange runs headlong against the US constitution; making a total mockery of the land of the free. To wit Australia and the UK can hardly avoid the exposure of their hopelessly craven fawning.

A savvy Australian government would persuade its rabid ally that this is a no win situation. Hicks obtained public sympathy and Assange is no Hicks running around the middle east with terrorists. The US is understandably angry but they will have their hands full trying to convict Bradley Manning. Assange is a bridge too far.

But for deference to the US, it is very likely Assange would have won the nobel peace prize for his role in Wikileaks. If Assange's crimes against the US were infinitely less contentious, the US would find any prosecution of Assange a pyrrhic victory. Even a super power needs to be wary of the enmity it attracts.

Try explaining to a 12 to 18 year old why Wikileaks is not journalism. Try explaining it to yourself without sprouting senselessness. If you possess evidence of systemic human rights abuses how do you go to the source to check if its ok? - "new show me, which bits should be redacted because of national security" - really!

"911 was an inside job."

That is sick. I had a good friend in the towers and that is just vile.

YEBIGA; I agree with some of what you say; as a practitioner I have seen over the years some dodgy claims of sexual assault that neverthe less have still gone through the courts [google Peter Blackmore]; and this is the essence of sexual assault; usually it is a matter of testimony between the accuser and accused with no other forensic evidence; and the only way to test the testimony and the relative probity of each version is in court.

To that extent sexual assault has a strict liability component to it.

The Crikey article written by James Catlin says this:

"Rape is a crime of violence, duress or deception. You can rape someone by deluding them into thinking you are someone else or by drugging them or by reason of their young age but essentially it’s a crime of violence."

That is not quite right; rape is a crime of consent; that consent must be freely given for the duration of the act; there have been cases where the women has withdrawn consent after the act began with consent and the continuation of the act after consent was withdrawn was found to be rape. The cases in Sweden where a condom was not worn would seem to be prime facie consistent with this principle of constant consent.

For this reason I don't think the alleged offences in Sweden are as Mr Catlin asserts:

"Such statements would stop a rape charge in any Western country dead in its tracks."

I don't think they would.

As for the 'journalistic' part of Assange's actions, noone has yet addressed the 2 provisos I raised in my first comment, while generally agreeing in principle with the Wikileaks' exposure.

How can publishing stolen files be journalism. This mug is a traitor.
He should have sought permition before publication.
If Ecuadore grants asylum, they will be in the poop.
He has to face charges in Sweden.

Cohenite:-
If the post-coitus web posts were indeed posted by these aggrieved women boasting of their conquest of our Julian Assange, it is a stretch to argue consent was not given.

The more serious question is how do we designate the behaviour of Wikileaks and the dumping of classified US material. If you believe secret intelligences are critical to our national security, protecting our way of life, dah di dah, you will naturally believe Assange is atleast criminally negligent if not far worse.

On the other hand, if your are of the belief that very little good comes of this damned secrecy and that it needs far more oversight to secure public confidence and public safety from its excesses, well then Assange is of course a hero.

This is the debate we should have. Assange looms as the perfect storm to trigger just such a debate. It is to the US credit that they are prepared to risk this as any debate is bound to increase scrutiny, potentially increasing restrictions and oversight of future activities.

So perversly, I actually hope he is tried in Sweden and that he is extradited to the US as I believe his plight will attract unprecedented global attention.

To wit, you are appalled as most of us are with 911 conspiracy theories, but where is your outrage at the total failure of the goverment, the military and the secrecy cabal on that fateful morning. Who is accountable for this embarassment of a super power? Where was air defence?

Forget conspiracy this is unprecedented incompetance. There is no sign of improvement either: WMDs? The conquest of Iraq - just raised the standard of incompetance to ever new levels. Not convinced - how about the US sub-prime market?

Exactly at which point do you and others realise that without open, transparent, public accountability without criminal repercussions for those who abuse the public trust we only invite more of it? What remedy can their be to this craven culture but to dump the whole sorry farce of secrecy, just as Wikileaks did.

Implied in this ill conceived article is the idea that Australia should assist Assange to escape the consequences of his actions. He should be permitted in the alternate reality of "Kellie World" to break US law and then be assisted to avoid prosecution.

There is no basis for this, and Assange, if he wishes to act in the irresponsible manner which he has, without regard for the consequences to others, should face up to trial, and if found guilty, punishment.

Carr has said, in effect, that it is a legal question whether Assange is a journalist, and he has not formed an opinion on the question.

Being classified as a journalist does not affect the criminality or otherwise of the act, so the author merely underlines her confused and invalid approach to the problem of Assange’s reprehensible conduct. Her opinion of America is also irrelevant.

The problem is Assange’s conduct, not the conduct of the US or Sweden, or Australia.

Australia has no obligation to shield criminals from prosecution, simply because they are citizens of this country. Our obligation is to ensure due process.

"Exactly at which point do you and others realise that without open, transparent, public accountability without criminal repercussions for those who abuse the public trust we only invite more of it?"

This is the issue; governments doing things which some of the citizens disagree with such as invading Iraq or Afghanistan is a not an example of abusing the public trust.

As I said, I am for the idea of as much openess and transparency as possible; but to say that should be complete candour, immediate and unreserved by my government is a nonsense.

As I also said people who advocate that either ignore or sympathise with foreign powers and interests which are inimical to the US, Australia and the West generally.

And do you really think that if Assange did an equivalent act of public exposure in China, Russia, or any of the Islamic societies that he would be still walking around with due process?

Get real; it is only in the West that you can even have a conversation about this; at some juncture you have to say: ok, the release of these documents or this information is either going to put people in harm's way or give an advantage to those foreign interests.

Given that, if you say there should be as much openess as possible either at the time or as soon as possible after an event or operation has been completed, then I would agree. But, as a case in point, would you have wanted the operational details of the Bin Laden raid publicised before hand?

My problem with Iraq and Afghanistan is not about public support; it is about the execution. It is possible to debate the merits of going to war. It is not possible to defend the diplomatic, strategic and military incompetence displayed during these wars - to this very day.

The deliberate dismantling of Iraq's civil order, its police and military; the willful creation of a total power vacuum. Who does this? Like Stalin's long hidden purges of his own people, the real stories of the conquest of Iraq and Afghanistan are yet to been told. When this happens, we will be left with a shame which by comparison dwarfs Vietnam.

When we look back on this time, perhaps 10 years hence, we will wonder at our treatment of displaced Afghanistan boat people arriving at our shores. People directly displaced by our conquest of their country. Our own Government may well condemn us - we may even witness a public apology. But that future apology is but a hollow gesture because our current public disengagement, quite frankly, is unforgivable.

"As I also said people who advocate that either ignore or sympathise with foreign powers and interests which are inimical to the US, Australia and the West generally."

This line of argumentation is entirely unacceptable. Effectively, you are yelling "treason"; "your with us or against us".

Our entire democratic tradition condemns this type of argumentation. The freedoms you say you can only find in the west did not happen by chance; they are dependent on this tradition; As is our constitution, laws, and culture. If we condemn Assange, we condemn those freedoms you celebrate; we condemn ourselves.

"This line of argumentation is entirely unacceptable. Effectively, you are yelling "treason"; "your with us or against us".

You are verballing me by leaving out the first bit of what I said:

"As I said, I am for the idea of as much openess and transparency as possible; but to say that should be complete candour, immediate and unreserved by my government is a nonsense."

Is this what you are arguing? I gave the example of Bin Laden; military operations in general would have to be dealt with in a case by case situation. How could it be otherwise?

So to with the implementation and prosecution of the Iraq war; IF noone is compromised and national security is not jeopardised then full disclosure should be made. This is already happening in a particular way; Australian servicemen have already had to answer serious charges relating to their behaviour in Afghanistan; unless you are saying that was a whitewash, that has to be a good thing and vindication of why and what they are fighting for.

At the higher level it is beyond doubt that the top levels of decision making are subject to process; look at Blair in England and the Iraq war enquiry.

What exactly do you want to happen?

He sexually assaults women in Sweden and should escape the consequences because the Left like him? It does not matter if all if all of us could see his purported halo, he goes to court in this exemplary jurisdiction. To do otherwise is to treat women as mere chattels of powerful men such as Assange

"What exactly do you want to happen?"

In a word accountability - at the highest offices

We publicly humiliate 20 something AFL footballers if they say something distasteful on a football field. We cut off the dole for an unemployed centrelink recipient for any non compliance stripping them of dignity and livelihood.

Compared that to:
911 - either the intelligence failed or the administration failed. Either the heads of the CIA, NSA etc are dismissed and publicly humiliated or they must be charged, convicted and severely punished. If it was the administration, then Bush needs to be impeached.

If a war is conducted unsuccessfully, the General in command must be humiliated and dismissed or charged with incompetence.

If your ally is running amok, breaching human rights conventions, our government is obligated to warn them, warn them and then act by humiliating them publicly, and severing support.

NB: Your Bin Laden example is a poor one, as all the world knew we were after him. I don't believe the operational details needed to be made public before or after if the result is successful.

On the other hand if the result is a failure - I expect investigation, disclosure, dismissals, humiliation and where appropriate convictions.

Those in high office should be our children's role models - not 20 something footballers. Respect for those in high office has been eroded because there is insufficient consequence for failure. Forget foreign affairs look at the GFC, the Euro Crisis, or closer to home with the Pink Bats project, Victoria's desalination plant, Myki, etc, etc.

UserID 'cohenite', posting on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 9:34:43 AM, responds to an earlier claim by 'Arjay' as to "9/11 [being] an inside job" with this, to me, perplexing non-seqitur:

"That is sick. I had a good friend in the towers and that is just vile."

How is that good friend's memory in any way diminished by such a claim? Irrespective as to whether that friend died because of a surprise terrorist attack of unforeseen magnitude, because of an act deliberately engineered from within and/or around the apparatus of government of the US intended to be attributed to terrorists, or because a perhaps partially monitored genuinely terrorist plan was (in the light of hindsight, unwisely) allowed for intelligence-related reasons to proceed to a conclusion of what was to be unexpected scale and devastation, is not that friend equally an innocent victim whatever the scenario?

Why is such a suggestion 'sick' or 'vile', especially in circumstances where many who have studied the official explanations of the events of that day consider that some of the evidence does not support some of the official conclusions made? I ask this because on the face of it, such abrupt dismissal seems like an attempt to shut down any inquiry outside of an officially sanctioned one.

Some of the things revealed in the diplomatic cables are capable of casting recorded events in a possibly different light to that in which they may have been contemporarily viewed. One example is that of the Stockholm bomb blast of 11 December 2010, initially billed as being down to the actions of an islamic Swedish citizen of Iraqi origin who had become radicalised whilst a long-term resident in the UK, but now capable of being seen as an agent provocateur-like event designed to influence both Sweden's legislators and its public to accept agreements facilitative of US extradition practice.

Questioning the status of Assange as a defacto journalist serves only to take the rightful focus away from the cable dump being the major US security breach it always was.

Kellie Tranter states, in paragraph 13 of the article, that:

"The obvious inference [of the absence of reference in
Australia's Washington embassy cables to representations
on behalf of Assange between 1 November 2010 and 31 January 2012]
is that the Australian Government understands how important
it is for U.S. prosecutors that Assange remain outside the
protection of First Amendment rights."

Although not mentioned in the article, a footnote to this may subsist in the leaked STRATFOR emails. I recall that one of those emails made reference to Assange as having been FIRST brought to US attention in relation to Wikileaks-like disclosures by the Australian Security Intelligence Service (ASIS). I do not, however, recall any date as having been specified in this respect.

The STRATFOR executive that is represented as having made this claim in the leaked email was described as having formerly been an Under-Secretary in the US State Department.

Whilst it is, I suppose, possible that ASIS may have been the first intelligence agency to give the US a 'heads-up' in relation to Assange's activities or intentions, it is really surprising that anyone having such a State Department background would casually reveal ASIS as being the source of such information if it had really been so. And casual that revelation in the email seemingly was! So I ask myself, was ASIS first approached by US agencies to 'do them a favour' by pretending to have first come to knowledge of Assange-related matters, in order perhaps to convince Australian politicians that there was a hidden 'national security aspect' to what was soon to come out into the open as a US pursuit of Assange with inferences as to espionage against an Australian ally being involved?

I wonder has ASIS been asked by any Australian politician, or by any relevant Committee of the Parliament, as to exactly what role it played, if any, in the bringing of Assange to US notice?

Implying a security risk is a tried and proven way of shutting politicians, especially Australian ones, up. Is that what has actually happened?

The problem is not Assange. It is the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan) in the great game against other nations for resources. Assange is a mouse who managed to nibble a hole in the armature and expose it for the rest to see - those who want to look.
In general it proves that government public relations are to be taken with a grain of salt, particularly with regard to wars against entire nations without sufficient rationale. The implications for national sovereignty in allowing the extradition of Assange are of serious concern for any Australian who understands them, both symbolically and in practice.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution made clear treaties couldn’t bind citizens, unless they are part of law. The Dutch refused to extradite a US citizen wanted for murder unless the US guaranteed he would, if convicted, not face the death penalty. Why not the same with Great Britain to stipulate that any extradition to Sweden must be limited to any charge applicable in Sweden as to the allegations against Julian Assange and cannot be used for extradition to a third country?
Most people seems to be unaware that the European Union Human Rights, etc, are actually complimentary to our constitution applicable. My blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati sets it out in details.
As an Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal issues (INDEPENDENT consultant to FOLEYS LAWYERS Wagga Wagga)subjected at times by judges with CONTEMPT OF COURT for publishing matters, but so far no conviction(s), I am well aware how extreme difficult it can be to disclose matters.
The very purpose the Commonwealth of Australia has “external affairs” powers to it come to the aid of Australians. It seems to me their own political survival is more important than their constitutional obligations to assist Assange.
This is also why I am standing as an INDEPENDENT candidate in the Melbourne by-election as to seek to get our governments to act for the electors and not just for their own self interest.

DISCLOSURE: INDEPENDENT candidate Melbourne by-election Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 107 Graham road, Viewbank, 3084 Victoria