Lexi,

As both the UK and Sweden are members of the EU, both countries while still sovereign are legally far closer than say the US and Australia, and the requirements for extradition are thus lower.

He is being extradited for questioning related to two criminal complaints, and the treaty does not require charges to be laid. Personally whilst I believe that there is a high probability of misconduct in his case, the chance of a successful prosecution is slim. This is however, irrelevant to the extradition process.

The risk that JA faces is that once in Sweden, the US can approach Sweden for him to be extradited to the US.

According to Minister Roxon, DFAT is doing 'all they can' to assist Julian Assange as an Australian citizen. I am sure there is much more they can do to advocate for a person and to ensure there is no implied agreement with the US to extradite Mr Assange should he set foot in Australia. There has been no such statement as yet by our government. No matter what you think about Julian Assange - I don't know the guy - he has done more to highlight the issue of transparency than any other person (perhaps since Ellsberg) in recent times.

Why has Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, when requesting under FOI documents relating to discussions or correspondence with the US on Assange, receive heavily redacted documents. Why was Wikileaks and human rights lawyer Jen Robinson detained temporarily at Heathrow Airport as person on a 'watchlist'. Whose watchlist?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/19/australian-wikileaks-lawyer-on-inhibited-person-travel-list/

The release of cables demonstrate entirely how far removed governments have become from the grass roots, from the people they represent.

While there is no doubt some secrecy is necessary in government, it should be a rare occurrence with a strong impetus, not the modus operandi.

The reason why there is opposition to Assange other than the usual sycophant response, is the fear that vested interests have in maintaining their overt influence over governments.

Should the Australian Government interfere in this matter - considering that Assange is an Australian citizen?

Yes and it is still not too late: Australia should send a helicopter to pick him up to the safety of an Australian navy ship or submarine - otherwise we may just as well raise the white flag and become the 51st state of the USA.

I am not sympathetic with rape, but everyone knows that the sexual charges are only a pretext and not the real issue. If the Swedes insist, then why not - let him be tried in a Swedish court by a video-link, and if found guilty, let him serve his sentence in Australia (in fact, Australian prisons are much harsher than their Swedish counterparts).

Hello there LEXI...

An interesting thread for sure.

It is my understanding, from media reports, Mr Assange has received consular assistance whilst in London. Further, apparently he's not in custody, rather he's on Bail and is receiving both legal counsel and domiciliary succour from others, who are sympathetic to his cause.

Until he's been actually charged, I'm not really sure what other assistance the Oz Govt. can do for him at this stage. I may well be corrected on this. I've not been following this matter all that closely.

Though in the matter of Mr David Hicks, notwithstanding I can't abide the man, I reckon the Oz Govt. were absolutely delinquent in failing to furnish this individual with meaningful assistance during his protracted incarceration.

As to what has motivated Mr Assange, to first source, scan and then disseminate material of a kind that's allegedly classified, and ostensibly, is the intellectual property of the United States. Well, I don't really know.

Perhaps RUNNER may have been closer to the truth, his own hubris ? Or maybe some (considerable) financial benefit could be a factor too, even both.

Personally, I wouldn't like to think I'd be silly enough, to bring about so much unfavourable attention to myself, particularly close scrutiny by the Yanks.

runner wrote: "Most Aussies could not care less about the technicalities of the law."

Dear runner,

The above is shocking. Maybe you don't care about the law, but I am under the impression that Australia is a law abiding country where all citizens are entitled to full protection of the law. In tyrannies like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia the government really doesn't have to pay attention to any law. In Australia and other democracies:

1. One cannot be imprisoned unless one has been found guilty of committing a crime.

2. A person accused of committing a crime cannot be penalised unless that person either pleads guity or is found guilty after a fair trial.

3. During a trial an accused person is presumed innocent until a jury has found that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. An Australia citizen held by authorities in another country is entitled to whatever aid can be given by Australian authorities.

Actually I think David Hicks was a dirty dog, but that is completely irrelevant. He was entitled to the same protection under Australian law that any other Australian citizen is entitled to. Under Howard that was not given to him.

I hope that most Australians do not have the lynch mob attitude that you apparently have.

david f

'The above is shocking. Maybe you don't care about the law, but I am under the impression that Australia is a law abiding country where all citizens are entitled to full protection of the law. '

Most Aussie I guess are more interested in whether someone is guilty or not. Slimy lawyers and activist are experts at finding ways of getting out of any responsibility such as Hicks whose actions were clearly despicable. You could say the same for Catholic Priests and others who have been protected from prosecution due to technicalities. Assange has pooped on the democratic nations and now wants them to protect him.