Most Australians are well aware of Julian Assange and his exposure of lies, corruption and injustices within large corporations, governments and military offices.for those that aren't, a summary is included below. While a good deal of time has been spent explaining the cause and constructing this document. In order to express an accurate understanding or belief. The whole story is far too complex to cover. It exposes countess injustices and shocking inhumanity throughout the world by groups in positions of trust and power. Readers are encouraged to research for themselves, discover and share as much information as possible in an effort to contribute to the work of Julian and WikiLeaks.   

On February 5th 2016 a panel of The United Nations (UN) ruled that Julian Assange is being unlawfully detained in London by Britain and Sweden governments that guard the exit of London's Ecuadorian embassy. They have protested the ruling and insisted that he will still be arrested the moment he steps outside the boundaries of the embassy. This has been his prison for more than five years and contrary to claims of committing a sexual assault in Sweden, the undeniable truth is that the U.S. government wants him dead after he uncovered and publicised numerous lies and corruption within their ranks. 

The U.N. was established immediately after W.W. II to prevent future conflict. It consists of six critical specific groups. It's duty/role and/or purpose.is to uphold and maintain peace and security worldwide. It is funded by voluntary contributions of each of it's member states. Initially it consisted of 51 member states, the five strongest/powerful of which have key veto powers to settle disputes and uphold the integrity of the organisation. That number has since grown to 193 member states. Basically, they should be respected as global police.

In 2003 George W. Bush set a dangerous precedent of bullying or corrupting the integrity within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in his mission for the eventual invasion of Iraq on 18th March 2003. He claimed to have solid proof that Iraq were manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMD) After failure to gain the backing (even after eight weeks of relentless negotiations) of three key UNSC members, China, France and Russia, on the 16th March 2003 at a UNSC conference in Portugal, the USA had gained the support of the UK, Spain and Portugal and announced an imminent deadline of the following day for Iraq to admit to these claims and submit to unprecedented inspection/scrutiny. If Iraq failed to meet this deadline Bush made it clear that no further authorisation from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq.

This was after earlier in March the UN had declared that Iraq were compliant with numerous recent inspections by a roster of more than 300 experts and that Saddam Hussein had provided them with the names of hundreds of scientists that had been involved in the destruction of U.N. banned weapons in 1991 and that they could not find evidence of any further manufacturing of WMD. The USA along with troops from the UK, Australia and Poland then brutally invaded Iraq from all angles exposing them to continuous bombing and military occupation spanning the next four years. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) commissioned by the USA in 2006 reported that after a year and a half of meticulously combing the entire country, that it was their inspectors beliefs that Iraq had disposed of any such weapons in 1991 and that no evidence of further manufacturing could be found. This confirmed the UN's stance prior to the invasion and justified their ruling against the whole conflict.

Legal experts continue to dispute the action taken by the USA to this day. According to most of the member states of the UN, it is up to the council as a whole and not individual members to determine how the bodies resolutions be enforced.

In summary, surely the obvious issue arising from this defiance is that we now must call into question the power and integrity of such an organisation if one key member (USA), failing to gain a majority support of the other four key member states (UK, France, Russia & China), can act outside of the councils resolutions, without fear of retribution even in the case of undeniable evidence of wrongdoing? I can only testify that my own opinion, at the time they started bombing, how I couldn't understand how a group of nations, after being told by the "police" not to proceed, could possibly get away with such a cold and callous act which in it's sheer intensity, would no doubt kill countless civilians who had no involvement whatsoever in the event. Something that opened my eyes to the exact same cause that Julian Assange has devoted his life to exposing. 

In an attempt to appear less biased, anyone who cares to research the individual who continually led, lied and lobbied toward this atrocity, would quickly come to question how such a man completed his basic schooling, yet went on to be leader of such a powerful nation and world influence. This one act resulted in a minimum of 500,000 deaths (estimates of 500,000 confessed to be based on minimum figures) to over 1,000,000. Most research points to around 200,000 of which to be innocent civilians. US Officials have been quoted as suggesting that WMD use would have possibly caused four times that number yet, since that was either a stupid mistake or an outright lie peddled by their leader, it could only really be used to calculate how he got there to begin with. edit: After getting these figures from official releases through the media, I watch a video interview with Julian Assange where he explained how many more instances of deaths were covered up and hidden from the media. WikiLeaks uncovered around 400,000 unofficial "reports" within Afghanistan alone, many of which contained multiple death counts. No one could possibly know exactly how many casualties there were over Iraq and surrounding territories.

This is but one of the issues caused by the leaders of "democracy" to prevent us being aware of so many more. There is video proof of countless US politicians blatantly demanding Julian Assange be "killed" and/or "assassinated" describing him as a "security risk to our freedom" oh, the irony! You should feel, threatened, just not by a prisoner in a small building in London. This hero continues to fight and rarely seems troubled by the predicament his cause to keep the bastards honest has dealt him. Make up your own mind, just don't ignore the issue.