Cables Show US Seeks Assange

prakslash writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that diplomatic cables they obtained show the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year, despite denials by the U.S. State Department and the Australian Foreign Minister. Further, the Australian diplomats expect that the U.S. will seek to extradite Assange to the U.S. on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks."

Comments

Re:Firing squad

[Spy Handler]

Firing squad is reserved for soliders. Hermann Goering requested death by firing squad, but they said no, you're too scummy to die like a soldier... so he suicided with cyanide instead.

Assange would be considered a spy so they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.

Except that they don't have much of a case against him, so they're probably just taking a wait-and-see attitude. If they have anything even remotely concrete to charge him with, they would've done it by now and extradited him from Britain already. It would be easier to get him from Britain which is a US lapdog, than Sweden, which is not so much.

The cables show... what, exactly?

[Baloroth]

However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”....

The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.

So, in other words, asking for advanced warning if the US does even make plans to request extradition equates to "US intends to chase Assange"? Really? I mean I have no doubt that if the US thought it could bring charges against him that didn't possibly fall under First Amendment protection, it probably would, but that is the evidence you have? The Australian embassy asking for advanced warning? That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.

Re:Previous Charges

[Americano]

Under Swedish law, they cannot file formal charges in Sweden until they interview him. Whether or not that interview strictly needs to take place in Sweden is an open question - I've seen some lawyers claim it must, I've seen other lawyers claim there's no such law, but I've yet to see anything remotely like a definitive answer, either in the wording of the law, or specific precedents where it's been done before.

Though even if it isn't required to happen in Sweden, I would say that it's unwise to set a precedent in which you allow a suspect in a criminal matter to dictate the terms under which he'll agree to an interview about the charges. In any other situation, if a judge says, "return here for an interview," and the suspect says "yeah, no thanks, but you can totally send someone over here for a chat," the suspect will get slapped with contempt of court sanctions... allowing a suspect to undermine judicial authority like that (essentially, thumbing his nose at the Swedish legal system and saying "fuck off") can have other long-range implications that Sweden may not be willing to bear the cost of.

Re:No surprise

[bill_mcgonigle]

Anyone who is surprised by this (or who thinks that Sweden is not a part of it) is simply not paying attention.

But, but ... the Swedish prosecutor has gone on record saying specifically that Sweden won't extradite Assange for torture or the death penalty.

Seriously, though, I hear Julian is going to be out front on Sunday. It would be quite an art project if two hundred other young clean-shaven thin white men with white wigs, white button-down shirts, gray wool pants, black dress shoes and socks, and Guy Fawkes masks all swarmed him and then got into passing cars.

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA

[larkost]

I don't understand how you think that most news orgainzations are just parroting the White House. The Obama administration regularly gets nocked by the mainstream press. Yes there are solidly liberal-leaning outlets out there (MSNBC being the largest), but that is not the mainstream press.

Fox News is the only news organization (that I am aware of) that has actually gone to court and testified under oath that their producers deliberatly wanted to lie to their viewers:

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

And it has been repeadly shown in studies that people who rely on Fox News have many of the important facts wrong about major events (e.g.: http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf), in most cases doing worse than people who did not regularly watch any news.

If people are getting their news only from sources that are openly (or near-openly) slanting their news, what hope does Democracy have? I will take an incompotent press (e.g.: much of mainstream media) long before I will accept one that is deliberatly biased.

I personally listen to NPR's news programs (very good, and very balanced), and leven that out with the Economist and an ocassional German news magazine. The Economist has a bit of an over-focus on pro-buisness, but they do try to be fair, and the German magazines often have a very different perspective than either the US or Brittish take.

Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti

[Hatta]

IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.

Just because it's a crime in the United States doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil. Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?

If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.