Thanks Prof Rees, at last some reasoned comment in Australia on the Assange affair but you are all too gentle on the Australian government. It may not be that - strictly speaking - Senator Carr lied to the parliament (which under our form of democracy is a resigning offence - remember Profumo?) and the Australian public but it is clear he knew much more than he was divulging and misled us. If he has any honour, he should resign.

Gavin Mooney

I applaud Ecuador for offering assistance to an Australian citizen due to the failure of the Skip government to fulfil its statutory obligations.

Assange apparently had to quickly find a sympathetic country that would be unlikely to kow-tow to the yankee bully boy, probably on advice from his rather smart team of advisers. I am happy to treat Ecuador's human-rights record separately in this situation, as the main focus for here is Assange.

As to the threat by the POMS to invade the Ecuadorian embassy to get at Assange, on one level that could have been useful as a precedent in future situations of 'sanctuary' involving all, even yankee and pommy embassies.

The real losers here are the Australians; we can see our politicians lying to us as well as our diplomats abandoning us, and we the masses are to indifferent to doing anything about same.

Nothing to add here except to say, do the crime do the time; and, vigorously/robustly agree, with both Shadow Minister and Cheryl!
Rhrosty.

The excellent Four Corners TV investigation into Julian Assange's time in Sweden revealed what would be high comedy if his freedom, and freedom of publication, were not involved. It seems that the most he could be charged with would be having sex with a couple of willing partners without using a condom. I for one had not known that this was a chargeable offence.

Jokes aside, this sorry business shows the lengths to which some organizations will go to punish whistle-blowers.

My impression of Assange as portrayed by the media is that of a ‘spoilt brat.’ It is clear that the Swedish authorities intend to question him over serious allegations of sexual misconduct (almost certainly rape). This is a heinous non-political crime though out the civilised world. The Swedish demand for extradition has been supported by the British legal system. As far as fair play and justice go it is hard to beat the British system, a system based on common law that we have inherited.

What of the political background to Assange and Wikileak. It is still by no means certain that the USA has prepared charges and that these will prove to be serious enough to meet the extradition treaty agreements between the USA, UK, Sweden or Australian. A possible Assange extradition procedure to the USA has not been tested anywhere. In fact this at present is a hypothetical situation, while the Swedish case is a legal reality. Further the difficulties of his case are compounded by his jumping bail.

I do not blame America for being very angry with Assange for receiving stolen property. Clearly convention allows journalists to publish such leaked (stolen information) without fear of persecution. In this regard, there are probably no legal criteria for irresponsible publication that endangers lives or stresses delicate international relationships.

It is for America alone to decide if their laws have been broken and that the potential crime is serious enough to warrant extradition. Clearly there are many obstacles to jump before –or even if- Assange is tried by a USA court. I can only say that if he is found guilty by a US court then he will have to pay the tariff.