The question 'Should Journalists Be Punished For Exposing War Crimes?' caught my eye. That question was asked in relation to the speech about Julian Assange, by Cailin Johnstone to supporters of the Socialist Equality Party of Australia.
Here in Jaffna, Sri Lanka - I ask that question as follows - Should rebels who believed that they were right be punished by law to which they are not bound by belief?
To my mind, the more fundamental question is whether the UK court has any jurisdiction to inquire on behalf of the USA? In the case of Sri Lanka, the USA brought a Resolution through the UN - in relation to whether war crimes were committed during the Sri Lankan war. That is how I interpret it. Hence when Julian the individual is being tried - no court of law in the UK has the authority to escalate it to global level. Likewise, Journalists who are bound by their own ethics need to look within before judging those whom they write about.
Rebels who have knowledge of law need to condition their minds to accept the punishment of law if they seek official positions through their rebellion. Belief, once expressed, would manifest its other side. That is the law of Nature. If Julian did believe he ought to have prepared himself for the other side to manifest in due course of time. Gandhi applied the law and saved the court's resources - when he acted unlawfully as per his belief. He thus demonstrated his respect for the law. If Julian did likewise, he would enjoy his parallel. The question is did he actually believe?
Truth always supports those who uphold the truth. I believe that that was how my book Naan Australian reached the National Library of Australia without any involvement on my part. That is the way of Truth. Julian needs the support of fellow Australians who have published truth at government level. He has mine in this regard. Natural Justice will do the rest.