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?