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.