I too applaud Assange.
For the last twenty years we've existed (I won't say "lived") in a world of imperial triumphalism and tawdry consumerism while our masters, the ones Assange exposes, preside over their lucrative chaos, corruption and intrigue.
Rudd and H Clinton have to go down as among the most despicable characters to ever strut the world stage--and both ostensibly from the left!

'Hero' is inappropriate. Anyhow, it is a term weakened by frequent and frivolous media references.

The real issue here is the lack of support from the Australian government for a citizen who is in a spot of severe, possibly life-threatening bother overseas.

It is outrageous that the Australian government is joining in the scurrilous attacks which have even descended into demands that he be killed. This lawyer puts it well,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9693372

Someone indicated some similarity with Hicks. The only similarity and it is a very important one is that the Howard government played politics and did not support an Australian citizen, just as is happening now with Assange, under our Joolia. Both Howard and Gillard are lawyers and would, or should, have known better.

Just who does the Australian government represent and importantly, what does it represent? What government ditches one of its citizens and adds fuel to the fire? Is Assange suddenly a Stateless person?

It could be seen as treason. The privacy of many countries has been compromised. A list of stratigic sites is in no ones interest but terrorists.

Very good points, Cornflower.

I'm appalled at the Australian Government's
obsequious toadying for the USA. Whether or
not you regard Assange as any kind of "hero",
he is still an Australian citizen who is entitled
to the full benefits and protections therein.

It seems that Australian sovereignty, citizenship
and law mean little when Uncle Sam comes knocking,
as this and other recent cases demonstrate.

579,

How is that even remotely relevant to whether the Australian government should be representing and protecting the rights of one of its citizens?

"the privacy of many countries has been compromised"!
How?

"A list of stratigic sites is in no ones interest but terrorists"
Haha! Of course, the VOTERS of that society would not benefit at all knowing that individuals they THOUGHT they could trust more than this would try to stand for re-election, and would now know they need to take more responsibility. Meanwhile, the terrorists are somehow going to invent a whole new attack from this knowledge, um, how?

Of course you don't have the answer, but are just posturing, am I right?

If my neighbor had been accusing my mentally ill uncle of sneaking into his and my garden at night and stealing the vegetables, and I had been arguing he was wrong (believing it was actually him)- if somebody recorded it and proved it was correct, would I punish that person because of it? Or, would I apologize to my neighbor (and make peace!) and take steps to stop my uncle wandering around and cause further damage (possibly to himself)?

Anyway guys, Runner and Boaz are obvious- in their simple minds, criticism of America = attack, and must therefore be the work of none other than the dastardly alliance of communists and terrorists and everything else that they don't like:

Also, the government were RIGHT in ignoring Hicks, because he had joined several armed terrorist groups and eventually the Taliban, and thus poses a credible security threat and anti-western individual:

They have NOTHING on Julian Assange because he does NOTHING but a public service to ALL westerners, except embarass crooked people in high places. They have no excuse to deny his rights (far more than Hicks) because he is HELPING DEMOCRACY and all democratic Western Citizens- surely this doesn't seem strange to you (except you Runner, who doesn't like democracy and is happy to pretend along anything that furthers your cause).