defense of Julian Assange.

[UPDATED 19 Dec 2010]

For a start; am not a lawyer, nor involved with any “law enforcement” agencies, official or otherwise. Am just an ordinary citizen of Australia (Rtr'd).

All this 'internet' furoré has me fascinated, so was wondering if there was some factual basis. All of the following is opinion.

I see where some politicians are calling for the “arrest” of Julian Assange (fair enough – means 'to bring to a standstill' or 'stop' (from the Old French; arester or Latin; restãre – to stand still). Can quite understand their embarrassment. Being caught with yer pants down does tend to invoke some anger generated by surprise. However, Julian has been very careful to distance himself and the organisation known as “WikiLeaks” from any link, collusion with, or knowledge of who actually happened to “break the law” (according to their own, individual, conscience or motive). “assassination” is quite a different concept, mostly confined to “primitive”, “uneducated” Nations.

There are, actually, quite a few “laws” in many countries around this planet relating to 'confidentiality', 'loyalty' and 'submission'. Most of the 'enlightened' systems of governance rely on individuals 'signing a contract'. Won't go into detail, but the “Spycatcher” case some time ago illustrates the general principal of what am alluding to.

Will also remind readers to read the detail of any TOS - “terms of service” that internet host providers supply. You'd be surprised at how vague some of the clauses are.

As far as I can gather; Julian Assange – by publishing information given to him - has broken no specific law. He is, yes, “Editor in Chief” of WikiLeaks. If, in fact, he IS guilty of “publishing information” given to him in secret - then I would suggest that EVERY “Editor in Chief” of EVERY print, radio, video transmission, media on this planet is, essentially, guilty.

The list, and details, of these sort of practices is far too long for me to summarise here; but am sure you will know what I mean. (Remember “Deep Throat”; Woodward and Bernstein)

As a side-track; Am very disappointed by Julia Gillard and our own Attorney General. Ask Assange to “cease and desist”, perhaps; call for his “arrest”, perhaps. But shouting to the rooftops that what he has done is “illegal” - letting him know that you are just acutely embarrassed, uninformed; is not the mature stance, or response, that I would expect of an Australian National Leadership.

So, let me look at the “legalities” of what happened in Sweden in August, and subsequent.

Timeline1

So, who knows. Am very suspicious about the “timing” -
And it IS tempting to “invent” some dialogues. [Disclaimer – not fact, “rape” is subjectively difficult to define. This is a short summary based on 50 years of interaction between me and various human European origin females; and what have been able to discover from the internet.]

Female 1:(very happy, wanting to share) “'alloo, S here, you know Julian?'
Female 2:“Ya”
Female 1:“We have beautiful night”
2: “Oh”'
1: “ya, he is so beautiful”
2: “you have sex with him?”
1: “Ya, he very strong”.

Long pause …....



Yes, can imagine the sort of thing that happens next. Information sharing. " Me also. What, no condom?” “No”. “Have you?”, “No”, “Oh shit, has he ..?” “No idea”. Ring the bastard! Ask him````````````````````````````. No contact, where is he?, report to police, find him, ask him.

The whole Swedish situation seems to have gone a bit pearshaped from there.

Timeline version2
[added 19 Dec 2010] .One of the better comprehensive precis - aaand ..

Timeline version 3
August /October 2010
The Guardian has been digging
Longish article. If, as the Guardian claims, it has had an (unauthorised) squizz at the police 'record of statement' by the two females involved,  it becomes fascinating and, if true, not good for Assange.  Still classic She said/he said, though..