that might make the USA back off.

"Extraditing Mr Assange to Sweden ... would trigger a chain of events that would hamper pre-emptive measures to stop him being extradited to other countries ... where Mr Assange faces long-term imprisonment or possibly even the death penalty" ...

German left-wing MP Sevim Dagdelen visits Julian Assange at Ecuador embassy
AFP
September 03, 2012 12:51AM
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/german-left-wing-mp-sevim-dagdelen-visits-julian-assange-at-ecuador-embassy/story-fnd14032-1226463571170

Support from crazy conspiracy theorists is obviously still pouring in!

back in November, 2010, but the investigation is still ongoing due to the complexity of the Bradley Manning case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

The only clear statement from Holder says "To the extent there are gaps in our laws, we will move to close those gaps" -- but that can't threaten Mr Assange because the Constitution TWICE prohibits ex post facto laws

Of course, "former assistant attorney general" Kenneth Wainstein and "former CIA general counsel" Jeffrey H. Smith are both certainly entitled to their opinions -- but neither opinion really tells us anything definitive, and neither speaks on behalf of Holder

"close those gaps" could simply mean fresh interpretations of existing laws. Indeed, if you pay attention to the context of the article, Assange could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act because he was previously urged by the State Dept. not to release the cables (presumably because of harm that could be done to US national security), thus,

We have a moral duty to prevent war crimes and to reveal war crimes by publishing information about them. Both men have done that. They truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Others do not.

We held the Nuremburg Trials to punish government officials who summarily assassinated and slaughtered innocent civilians. There will always be casualties of war. But when we fight a war that is intrinsically illegal and then try to hide the brutal way in which we treat the civilians in the war zone once we are fighting an illegal war, we deserve to be outed.

The Germans understand the importance of respecting international laws and conventions regarding when and how wars may be fought. They were held to account.

And here, the US, instead of apologizing for the excesses and errors of our military when confronted with a video of them, accuses the messenger, the publisher of the video, Julian Assange.

Yes. The US is entitled to secrets, but when those secrets hide possible war crimes, the US has no more right to hide them than any common criminal has to hide his violations of law.

This persecution of Assange has to stop. Why would anyone be so persistently concerned about this one topic? I wonder. Certainly not an advocate for international law and human rights. Perhaps a member of the military fearing prosecution at some future time? It's peculiar in my view.

I support human rights. My view is pretty consistent on this. I oppose the illegal war in Iraq. I believe that those who ordered the invasion of Iraq should face war crimes trials in which what they knew and when they knew it is determined in a court of law.

I read Paul O'Neill's book on his tenure as the Secretary of the Treasury during GWB's first year. Bush and his allies were discussing Iraq in their first meeting on foreign affairs. Early on before 9/11 they had reviewed a map of the oil fields. Read the book, The Price of Loyalty, and then decide what you think about Assange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_O%27Neill_%28Secretary_of_the_Treasury%29

I appreciate the importance of the US government's right to secrecy about military plans, but I believe that the secrecy and espionage prevention laws are abused when they are used to protect the government from political embarrassment. And that is certainly the case in the Assange matter. The secrecy and espionage laws would be misused if the US tried to prosecute Assange. Those laws were intended to protect our troops and personnel in the field while conducting legitimate actions in the defense of the US. They were not intended to protect our government actors from prosecution for war crimes.

http://www.sevimdagdelen.de/de/article/2791.sevim_dagdelen_member_of_the_german_bundestag_visited_julian_assange_in_london.html

Did he, and I missed it?

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=236230
>>>>>snip
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has requested to meet with Private First Class (Pfc.) Bradley Manning to witness the conditions of his confinement, today made the following statement after news that the United Nations (U.N.) Special Rapporteur on Torture was denied an unmonitored meeting with Manning.

“Since my initial request to visit Private First Class (Pfc.) Bradley Manning on February 4, 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) has consistently sought to frustrate any attempts to communicate with Pfc. Manning regarding his well-being.

“I or my staff have been shuffled between the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Office of Secretary Gates. I was initially told that I would need Pfc. Manning’s approval in order to meet with him. When Pfc. Manning indicated his desire to meet with me, I was belatedly informed that the meeting could only take place if it was recorded because of a Monitoring Order imposed by the military’s Special Courts-Martial Convening Authority on September 16, 2010, which was convened for the case. Confidentiality is required, however, to achieve the candor that is necessary to perform the oversight functions with which I am tasked as a Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I was also told that I could be subpoenaed to testify about the contents of my conversation with Pfc. Manning.

“This is a clear subversion of the constitutionally protected oversight process and it severely undermines the rights of any Member of Congress seeking to gather information on the conditions of a detainee in U.S. custody.