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