Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer.

I do not intend to speak at great length, because I recognise that other senators are waiting their turn. Mr Assange was recognised as a journalist by the High Court of the UK. As a journalist and, through WikiLeaks, as a publisher, he has broken no law, just as the people who put his material on the front page of the Age and the New York Times have broken no law. My question, to which the answer is now just slightly overdue, seeks to clarify what our government has done and what our government is prepared to do to ensure that he is not subject to rendition to the United States, where, as we know, his life is under threat. There has been speculation that Mr Assange would be extradited to the United States from Sweden, but extradition requests, as we know, come with safeguards. We are much more concerned that, under a bilateral agreement between Sweden and the US, he could be transferred without any due process at all—a form of soft rendition known as temporary surrender. What happens once he gets there?

US Republicans Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee have called for him to be executed. Palin has said he should be hunted down like al-Qaeda. Vice President Joe Biden has said that he is a high-tech terrorist and that, 'We should treat Mr Assange the same as other high-value terrorist targets.' 'Kill him,' writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times. William Kristol, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, has asked:

Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralise Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?

'Why isn't Julian Assange dead?' writes prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg. Last week, when the President addressed this place, he spoke beautifully of 'the rule of law, transparent institutions and the equal administration of justice', and we would like to see these values upheld. Mr Assange's life is in danger in the US but so too are the First Amendment principles upheld in the Pentagon Papers case. Unlike the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, who are both lawyers, Mr Rudd recognised the principle—