Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cables Show US Seeks Assange

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the desperately-seeking-julian dept.

United States 488

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Firing squad (-1, Troll)

ronmon (95471) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028411)

Let's go old school on his ass.

Re:Firing squad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028475)

Between the electric chair and waterboarding, that doesn't even look as bad.

Re:Firing squad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028513)

Firing squad is "old school"? How about scaphism? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Firing squad (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028547)

You first.

Re:Firing squad (5, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028581)

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.

Re:Firing squad (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028657)

Firing squad is reserved for soliders.

Someone is wrong on the internet.

Idaho banned execution by firing squad in a law which took effect on July 1, 2009.[34] This left Oklahoma as the only state left in the United States that utilizes this method of execution (and only as a secondary method). On October 11, 2011, Florida State Representative Brad Drake sponsored a bill to give Florida death row inmates the option of death by firing squad.[35]

Re:Firing squad (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028659)

Rosenbergs were executed in the electric chair, as were the German saboteurs that were executed in DC jail during WW2.

Re:Firing squad (1)

jmauro (32523) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028693)

they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.

Both of them got the electric chair. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Firing squad (2)

redmid17 (1217076) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029059)

Rosenbergs got the chair, not the noose

IN SOVIET AMERIKA (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028641)

PARTY FINDS YOU!

His crime? Journalism.

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028761)

I don't know about journalism. I'd say they're more like the extreme opposite of Fox News.

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028955)

Yea, reporting excessive quantities of truth would be the opposite of fox news.

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029119)

Only if I had mod points...

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029337)

Since when does repeating the parent comment rank +4 Insightful?!

And parent comment sits at 0?

Slashdot's moderators are getting as bad as its editors.

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029361)

Ohhhh it's just so kewl to be anti Fox News isn't it?

Hey wait a minute, TFA says " investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".

That means your hero, maximum leader Obama, has got a hand in all this. Wow "does not compute, does not compute"! Democrats good, Republicans Bad!

Now go out there and start breaking windows of Starbucks like a good little radical. Gwan now, git!

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029023)

So they're going to hang Glenn Beck too?

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029105)

I do agree with you, if you mean that he shouldn't be put on trail for disclosing information unfavourable for a certain party.
And I also understand that putting intelligent statements in 1liners is difficult. That is both a weakness and a strength in the US, and especially for politicians/((anti)gun-)lobbyists/the lot.
But could you please be so kind as to disclose *your* definition of "Journalism"? Please forgive my boldness as to enquire, I am just curious.

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029147)

Journalism is "publishing" a cache of documents that you have no ability to know what's writen in them?
 
I guess you really do have to pass a bill to know what's writen in it, according to your illogic.

Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029267)

Shoot Him please. And He is not a journalist. He is a spy and commited espionage. Perception does not out weigh the facts. I wonder why he does not release russian or irianian documents....they would kill him for sure and would not have waited so long.

Re:Firing squad (4, Informative)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028649)

Because releasing information regarding unethical practices (to say the least) conducted by the US and other corporate entities is bad. Cue comparison photo:

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/8/82628/hero-comparison-wikileaks-vs-facebook-assange-L-NiA62d.jpeg [paperblog.com]

Re:Firing squad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028901)

Who decides what is and isn't ethical? Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?

Re:Firing squad (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029009)

Who decides what is and isn't ethical?

Individuals.

Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?

I wouldn't say our elected officials are ethical. But apparently as long as you agree with them, everything is a-okay.

Re:Firing squad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029035)

If you rely on your elected officials to make such decisions then you are helpless and ignorant.

Trying to start a stawman argument aren't we?

Re:Firing squad (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029045)

Who decides what is and isn't ethical? Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?

I'm sorry, but what ever gave you the indication that we trusted our 'elected' officials to be the keepers of proper ethics to begin with?

Re:Firing squad (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029203)

Each and every god damned one of us has a responsibility to identify what is ethical and what is not and call it out as such.

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? â" in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849

Re:Firing squad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028735)

I got a better idea, I can show you a hole in the ground nobody besides you will ever see.

Real Cables (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028481)

Or did wikileaks fake another release?

They have no credibility left. Dry up and blow away in the wind. They hurt more than they help now.

Re:Real Cables (3, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028523)

heh. he posts under cloak of ac. and he dares talk about credibility.

oh, the ironing !

Re:Real Cables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028573)

Is it possible that this is faked?

Yeah, along with anything else on Wikileaks, because they are submitted by anonymous people. Things have to be verified.

Is it possible that people have paid campaigns dedicated to move people's opinion one way?

Very. http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm [cryptome.org]

But if Wikileaks has no credibility, why does the UK want extradition on him so badly, to Sweden, enough to storm an embassy?

Re:Real Cables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028625)

Because he is accused of rape, dont you read the news?

Re:Real Cables (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028655)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/shawn-sullivan-extradition-blocked-america-most-wanted-pedophile-us_n_1633358.html [huffingtonpost.co.uk]

I'm sorry, try again. Why is this guy blocked but not Assange?

Re:Real Cables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028849)

Because UK is pedophile capitol of the world. Hell, there are many organized travel plans arranged there where UK men travel to southeast asia to have sex with kids and teens. It's in industry.. hence the protection

Re:Real Cables (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028717)

Right, the UK will risk commiting an act of war, for a rape SUSPECT

Grow up.

Re:Real Cables (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028805)

No indictment, no charges. No prosecution. Simple inquiry.

Yet Swedish authorities refuse multiple invitations to interview Assange for inquiry purposes in UK - including the past month, in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Instead, they push for extradition on contravention of International treaty law.

This is a chess game, being played on behalf of the Nation that incarcerates more of its own people than did Josef Stalin. The "Land of the Free".

Re:Real Cables (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029033)

lets be even more clear about this.

its not RAPE as most of the world defines it. its the peculiar definition that sweden uses, that he's ONLY accused of.

and I'm sorry, I'll say this bluntly, with the full spectrum of all the 'bad shit' that one person can do to another, sweden's definition of 'rape' is not quite enough to justify all the hooplah that's being made of this. sure, he was a heel, perhaps (we really don't know, though, its a lot of he-said-she-said, really). but I'm not sure this is international extradition worthy.

people do a HELL of a lot worse and get away with it.

(like, say, many of the people mentioned in the leaked cables... julian may have fucked two women, but people in the cables have fucked far more and far worse. THIS is the issue, not julian.)

Re:Real Cables (2)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029417)

Its not RAPE as most of the world defines it.

Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU. The UK would not have extradited him if the actions he is accused of weren't a crime in the UK; read the Supreme Court's Extradition Judgement [supremecourt.gov.uk] for more details.

Re:Real Cables (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028665)

But if Wikileaks has no credibility

no, mr ANONYMOUS COWARD, its you that have no cred.

at least post using an alt. they are free and easy to get. there's a clue for you, on your next shill post.

Re:Real Cables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028695)

Maybe you should read what I said again, and especially read the link I posted. I posted anonymously because I posted secrets on how to sway opinion that people are paid to do, and that would ruin many plans if people knew how they worked.

Re:Real Cables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028837)

You've got zero credibility as well. Your username and UID don't automagically make you credible.

No information here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028663)

Or did wikileaks fake another release?.

Oh, I'm sure they're real... because they don't actually say anything.

Did you read the article? The cables said that the Australian embassy asked about, and requested advance warning of, whether the U.S. decides to indict Assange. No information whatsoever suggesting that they do have any such intention. And they cables also said that the U.S. "investigated" Assange. Well, duh, of course they did. WikiLeaks was the source of a significant leak of classified material, of course they investigated the leaks.

The cables don't contain anything we don't already know. Most specifically, they don't give any information to the idea that the U.S. intends to indict, much less, extradite Assange.

Re:Real Cables (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028873)

Which fake cables? The fake cables faked by a Pakistani newspaper?

Haven't you finished beating your wife?

Medal of Honor (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028497)

Let's demand that Assange be issued the Congressional Medal of Honor and go after some of the lying scum that he helped expose.

Re:Medal of Honor (5, Funny)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028597)

He's not in the military: he wouldn't be elegible for that particular award even if he deserved it. Might you perhaps be thinking of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Re:Medal of Honor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029143)

There is no "Congressional Medal of Honor". It is simply, "The Medal of Honor".

This, despite precedents protecting new reporting (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028505)

It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.

Perhaps 20 years ago, people might have drawn a distinction between publishing on a computer network and publishing on paper, but today, those distinctions are muddy and in transition. (Before long, the ONLY way to keep publications secret will be to write them down and share them secretly.)

We have a nation of law enforcers who are not enforcing the law... they are enforcing the will of the leadership which is NOT the same thing. I think law enforcement needs to go back to enforcing the law and to remain WITHIN the law when doing so.

Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (4, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028661)

That is a very valid point. I'm sure his lawyer, once they determine he is in Guantanamo Bay and labeled and an "enemy combatant" would want to use that in his defense. Just have to wait for a few years to meet their client, a few more years of trials just to see if a foreigner held in a prison off of US soil is eligible for a trial in the US Judicial system, etc.

Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (2, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028751)

It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.

That's generally true, but then there is no protection for, say, breaking into an office and stealing documents in order to publish them. And there is a continuum between active law breaking of that sort, and completely passive receipt of unsolicited information. If I were Assange, I would certainly not want to visit the US to find out if some one of my many activities had pushed far enough along that continuum that they could make a criminal case against me.

Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028869)

He didnt break into anything.

Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (4, Insightful)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028851)

If you had read the article, you'd see that it is based on the Australians speculating. There's not much to quibble with the speculation (though the Slashdot title is misleading).

But you'll also note that they think an indictment would be based on conspiracy. And in that area, journalists can get nailed. If you are just receiving information, journalistic protections are fairly powerful. But if you work too closely with the informant, then conspiracy can raise its head.

Let me give two examples (hypothetical):

1) Manning sends Assange the files unsolicited. Assange would be protected.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.

The first was just receiving information. The second crosses the line from just transferring information to other activities.

Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029389)

2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.

Conspiracy to leak information that as a foreign national on foreign soil he had no legal obligation to keep secret.

Oh wait, I forgot US law applies across the entire planet, and probably Mars now.

Previous Charges (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028531)

It's becoming more and more evident by the day that the so-called "charges" that put him on the run in the first place are bullshit. This is about the US capturing Assange any way possible.

Re:Previous Charges (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028605)

if the *charge* is about sex and it had nothing to do with a US person or even on US soil, what the HELL is the US's interest in this?

again, I say, this does not pass the smell test.

its all about saving face and making an example, to deter others from exposing dirty laundry.

100% that's all this is about.

and that's why it should not be allowed, for the US to have him.

and don't get me wrong, I don't care that much about this particular guy. I don't know that much about him (and neither do you, really). but the fact that the US is going after him for exposing their lies and deceipt - THAT is a rallying cause. its not about the man.

Re:Previous Charges (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028831)

I find the timing of the sex charges too coincidental to pass the smell test.

Of course we are the ones with the biggest guns so what we say goes. That is all this boils down too. Assange pissed the wrong people off and those people want to make an example.

The sex charge were submitted 3 months ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029201)

before the controversy about the "cables".

Re:Previous Charges (0)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029183)

And everything is getting really too hot for comfort. Wonder if Israel is really, as in "seriously," going ahead with the fireworks in Persia? That's quite intereseting. A tiny country rattling its switchblade at the big guy on the block calling him names and spilling gossip and threatening while all the time crying that it's being persecuted. Funny. I mean funky. Scary.

Re:Previous Charges (4, Informative)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028789)

has he actually been charged in sweden? I thought part of the big controversy was that he was not actually charged, they wanted to force him to go to sweeden to "question" him, even though he volunteered to host them, and answer any questions many, many times. They either want to extradite him, or do one heck of a "perp walk" on TV to shame him, and I don't think he's actually even charged, let alone proven guilty.

Re:Previous Charges (5, Interesting)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029137)

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.

Swap for Cheney? (5, Funny)

Fencepost (107992) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028541)

I'd love to see Assange go somewhere that's seeking to extradite Bush and/or Cheney and offer a swap.

Re:Swap for Cheney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028579)

ill allow it

Re:Swap for Cheney? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029301)

Hold on to your hat there hippy, TFA says " investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".

That means your hero, maximum leader Obama, has got a hand in all this. Wow "does not compute, does not compute"! Democrats good, Republicans Bad!

Now go out there and start breaking windows of Starbucks like a good little radical. Gwan now, git!

Re:Swap for Cheney? (3, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029413)

While I'd love for them to stand trial; I'd never ever give up an innocent person whom will be subject to torture in exchange for a criminal.

This makes the US look worse (3, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028563)

Not only did US personnel break their own moral, ethical and legal boundaries but now they want to kill the messenger. Going after Assange makes the US look more like China than a democracy.

Re:This makes the US look worse (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028617)

The US has never been a democracy, not even ostensibly. It is a constitutional republic, which is different than a democracy.

Over time, it has become less and less of a republic and more and more of an oligarchy, which is bad, but it has never even pretended to be a democracy.

Re:This makes the US look worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028807)

Yes but it IS a Democratic Republic, this is something that should always be remembered. You're still suppose to mind the majority to some effect, how much is very debatable.

Re:This makes the US look worse (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028707)

I'm afraid to comment on this story, post it to Facebook or to have my political views heard, for fear that it might prevent me from future government jobs, or possibly even from crossing the border.

The U.S. is lying. Sweden is lying. The U.K. is supporting them. This story makes it clear that "Western" governments can't be trusted to uphold their own founding values.

Re:This makes the US look worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028741)

There's no reason for them not to go after Assange, since it won't affect their chances of continued employment and power, and it's not like hypocrisy is a new thing for the U.S.A. The real disappointment is the fact that foreign governments are still so ready to whore themselves out to america, even as its reputation and financial security has been on the decline for over a decade.

Re:This makes the US look worse (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028825)

Kill the messenger is wrong for the people that is target for the message, like the citizens of US and in general the rest of the world. Is not like they don't like the message, they already know it, just want to avoid that people know it, and warn others that could try to spread similar messages. What should be interesting is that there are US citizens that want Assagne in jail, the one that gave them some insight of what really do the people that they elected to represent them.

US hire nancy grace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028575)

Seems like US State department hired Nancy Grace to try and get Assange on anything that will "stick".

Two weeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028583)

I give Malfoy two weeks before he acquires a severe case of cranial lead poisoning.

Re:Two weeks (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028997)

Yeah! Just leave Hermione the hell alone!

The cables show... what, exactly? (5, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028585)

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:The cables show... what, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028793)

That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.

Look, this is Assange. The man is a walking tinfoil hat's wet dream, made tangible and given human form. Speculation is far, FAR more than enough to fire up his followers.

No speculation needed after this week. (3, Interesting)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028815)

"In a statement issued after the Ecuadorean decision to grant Mr Assange political asylum, Mr Hague said the UK was under a "binding obligation" to extradite him to Sweden."

They're willing to throw centuries of tradition on diplomatic immunity out the window because of a "binding obligation" to extradite him.

When he hasn't been charged, his accusers have left the country, and he sought (and was granted) permission to leave Sweden in the first place. If you don't smell something rotten here, you've got a clothespin over your nose...

Re:The cables show... what, exactly? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028935)

The Australian embassy asking for advanced warning? That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.

Continue speculating:

American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".

What could America have possibly said that, upon disclosure, would harm international relations?

[ ] We're interested in extraditing Assange
[ ] We're NOT interested in extraditing Assange
[ ] Other

Re:The cables show... what, exactly? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028959)

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

The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully and narrowly drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US Constitution.

Sounds to me like there is more than just the one factoid you latched on to.

Re:The cables show... what, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029123)

Boy im glad you weren't in charge of some high role during the cold war.

Everything to you would be speculation.

Re:The cables show... what, exactly? (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029153)

No. The Australian government was previously claiming that they didn't think the U.S. would persecute Assange at all. Now it comes out that not only are they pretty certain the U.S. would charge Assange (and the charges would be made to avoid the first amendment), but that they wouldn't object to it either.

There's a big difference between telling everyone, "We know it can't possibly happen" and then preparing for it's eventuality.

No surprise (3, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028599)

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

And who posteed the leaked cables this time? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028603)

After all, Assange couldn't have done it himself, could he?

Re:And who posteed the leaked cables this time? (1)

noahwh (1545231) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028813)

"released under freedom of information legislation"

Re:And who posteed the leaked cables this time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029359)

"released under freedom of information legislation"

We should extradite whoever is responsible for this treasonous "Freedom of Information" act! It is being used to discover secrets that we are ashamed of!

Re:And who posteed the leaked cables this time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028871)

Don't worry. The US is asking to extradite Australia too.

Honestly, after everything we've seen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028609)

...does anyone NOT already have that filed under "no shit, Sherlock"?

Sheesh (5, Insightful)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028637)

You'd think the guy performed a punk concert in a church or something.

Re:Sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028699)

lol I get the joke. Damn hooligans!

Yes, combine his reality show with "Pussy Riot" (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028721)

That would be hoot and half! They could call it "Pussy Leaks."

I'm not sure that in Putinist Russia, such a thing would be permitted, though. Live from the Gulag . . . ?

tyranny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028769)

The USA is completing the transition to a banana republic. I had hope Obama would slow down the tyranny and the imperialist war making, but we know how that turned out. We're poorer than an time since the great depression, thanks to Bush. I'm 65 and a vet - I was a patriot, but the re-election of Bush ended that. Instead of feeling ashamed over what Assange revealed, the power structure, decided to seek vengence. I have no doubt, that in the end the US Government will kill him - probably with a drone.

Secret ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41028853)

Doesn't that only apply to members/citizens of the nation with the secret ?

To everyone else it's the hidden truth, fact, private opinion, or propaganda.

The US can punish the leaks that are US citizens, but NOT Assange.

The other charges sound like trumped up bullshit.

STAY STRONG ASSANGE!!! (5, Funny)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028859)

- do push-ups and sit-ups every morning (reduces sores and reduces chances of deep vein thrombosis!)

- don't just eat pizza and ramen! Consume at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily

- keep hydrated! You're in England now, Tea is cheap!

- Be sure to catch the morning sun! Find a sunny window and soak in the nourishing strength of the rays. You don't want rickets!

- personal grooming improves self-esteem and keeps up morale. Just because you're stuck in a tiny room with few visitors doesn't mean you should let your hair grow out and start braiding. Beards are for nerds and mountain men. Buzz cut looks professional and sharp!

- along with personal grooming, iron your clothes for public appearances (err...skype video chats). A snappy dresser shows leadership and determination.

- use the free time you have wisely; catch up on lost episodes of Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and Mad Men - hey, you might even learn something.

- solitude = deep thought = time to read! Like past unjustely imprisoned geniuses, Napoleon, Galileo, Ann Frank ect..., all found solace and comfort in their books. Cherish the printed page!

- The Harrods food court is across the street; use this opportunity to train your culinary palette. I suggest starting with Mexican and working your way to Indonesian.

- remember, it could always be worse! Nelson Mandela didn't have access to hi-speed internet (though he did get daily walks out doors: but everythings a trade off!)

- Oh and lastly, never forget; the first duty of the political prisoner is escape! Good luck Sir!

Re:STAY STRONG ASSANGE!!! (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028965)

- Be sure to catch the morning sun! Find a sunny window and soak in the nourishing strength of the rays. You don't want rickets!

But beware of the little red dot while in the vicinity of open windows.

Re:STAY STRONG ASSANGE!!! (2)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029391)

- Be sure to catch the morning sun! Find a sunny window and soak in the nourishing strength of the rays. You don't want rickets!

This is England we are talking about. Morning sun! Ha, The best he can hope for is morning clouds.

Sweden may have Sharia law by time he gets there (-1, Troll)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41028875)

The way the Europe in evolving. Then it will be an "eye for an eye" ...

Re:Sweden may have Sharia law by time he gets ther (0)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029071)

Oh really now, this whole "europe is getting flooded with muslims" myth is starting to get old and is only propagated by right wing politicians with nationalistic tendencies. 70% of all the people in sweden are registered with the church and 5% of the population is muslim.

Sleep tight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029385)

If you still don't see that the massive influx of muslims is a real tangible problem you've really not been paying attention.

But, hey, just on the off chance, I'll ask you a few questions:

1) What is the social situation in countries that have a muslim population of more than, say, 15%?
2) Take any region in conflict, *any* region. It always borders on a country or region controlled by muslims, or is a muslim country itself.

When is the last time you heard of widespread terrorist attacks by buddhists? Or Sikhs? Hindu? That's right, that never happens. It is always muslims.

But keep telling yourself it is all in the mind of those rightwing nutcases, if that helps you sleep.

Re:Sweden may have Sharia law by time he gets ther (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029089)

I think sharia law spells out rape punishments already. Getting a conviction will be hard though, as a woman's testimony is only worth 1/7 of a man's.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029235)

lol when are we going to start holding the govt accountable for being liars? it trickles down even into how police officers do their job.

ffs...

The gameplan (3, Interesting)

sageres (561626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41029323)

It seems that neither the general public nor the Assanage understand the game-plan. It is fairly easy. They intend on making him so paranoid that he will become a prisoner of his own making. Even if he manages to get out of London unmolested by the British police their security aparatus, and get to Ecuador -- he will be a wanted man across the entire Commonwealth spectrum, because in effect by leaving he will be breaking British law. That will effectively make him both a most wanted and persona-non-grata within much of the world. The only places where he will be able to travel freely would be within the new Bolivarian states, Russia and perhaps some of the Middle East.
But even than he won't be able to travel freely at all, and perhaps will not be able to step out within the confines of his future place of living in Ecuador, because there will be many who would want to capture and deliver him to any British enclave. (in Americas think Stanley, or Georgetown, or even Ottawa).
And the best part about it -- all Americans have to do is to continue denying that they are actively perusing him while giving subtle hints and "leaks" that they actually do.

Going to take an unpopular position. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41029367)

They *should* go after him. The rationalization this was journalism is a farce. Lets take the assumed analogue of the oppressed Syrian citizen tweeting against the regime or telling of some evil deed done by them. In each case the Assange defenders would say, "the individual is speaking out against the oppressive government getting the truth out for the world to see." In one case, the actor posts the information to express to the world the tyranny under which they live to maybe just someday restore some kind of liberty in their lives, at great risk to their own life. In the other case the actor posts the information with the express purpose of shaming and harming the government that authored them.

What would the position of the slashdotters be if Assange weren't leaking classified information, but, say, private information of EU citizens? I pick EU due to all the laws in place regarding personal information. Suppose he was posting gigs of credit card records indicating the purchase of a extra small Fleshlights. They would be outraged that their personal information was being shared with the world and now everyone knew they bought an extra small Fleshlight.

"But these are government documents, they are our governments and they work for US." (Us the first person objective plural, not the estados unidos) Sure, they do work for us. But governments have the right to their own secrets. Assange was knowingly distributing them with malice. I would hope and expect them to pursue charges.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?