the groundwork is being laid to prosecute. Once he gets extradited to Sweden, there may be those in the US pushing to move forward.

Obama seems to have a real bent for it. It's his least attractive characteristic.

Hmm..dunno.
IMHO, asserting the right to kill Americans without arrest or trial or even charges, is pretty unattractive.
Right up there with droning civilians of other countries with whom we are not even at war.

But you can definitely broaden the discussion.

...to show me where in the Constitution it says that they can charge a foreign national with breaking a U.S. law.

- Oh. That's right. A Rogue State doesn't have to have anybody's permission to do shit, do they???

In November 2010, a former CIA general counsel justified prosecution under the Espionage Act based on the fact that Assange was given notice by the State department not to release the secret cables.

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

...from someone who doesn't also work for the same agency that approved and carried-out torture. As I recall, there's a law against that too last I checked.

- And once again, neither Julian Assange, Mobutu Sese Seko or anyone else who isn't an American can be held responsible nor accountable under US laws. This is just more of the U.S. being it's natural self: BULLY

[center][/center]

including the NYT, Guardian etc etc and just about every News Corp newspaper and probably FOX NEWS !!!

..as they all repeated the information.

Assange may well be charged and tried and found innocent yet spend years in jail like Bradley Manning.

that in some demented way -- we wouldn't try to defend our stupidity, corrupt hegemony, our hypocrisy re: 'defending' the constitution?

that makes me think: Yes, I am a citizen of the USA. By birth, not by choice.

Where the hell is Australia in this? Looking for the spine they misplaced?

has apparently been passing intelligence to US investigators:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-secret-assange-files-20120818-24f9c.html#ixzz24IyqoI00

If convicted, you create a martyr - if acquitted you embellish his reputation. And I see acquittal much more likely than conviction - it is hard to see how he broke any US laws.

I can't see how extraditing Assange and putting him on trial benefits America. If you assume that Wikileaks is a movement and not just a person, then punishing Assange does nothing to stop Wikileaks - there will always be people capable of stepping into this shoes. If Wikileaks the movement is deemed the real threat then perhaps ignoring Assange and doing something else in the shadows is the better course of action.

Assange has been under British house arrest for two years. He was in a British jail cell for a while. Why hasn't he been renditioned yet - it would be a lot easier from Britain then from Sweden.

This is the one argument that makes no sense - that the US is willing to break international law to get their hands on Assange yet were not willing to do it for two years. What has changed?

Or at least they've refused to so far. OTOH, Sweden has a history of cooperation with the US in renditions and tortures. So, all the US needs to do is find some pretext to get Assange to Sweden.

And your link doesn't work for me. Try again.

ok.

The link works just fine. I suggest you google the subject line - it is the actual headline.

and they have no problem making an example out of him, including borderline torture.

After Assange hung Manning out to dry and following a trial that puts Manning away for a long time, people are going to think long and hard before cooperating with Wikileaks. Perhaps now they will actually use the whistleblower law.

Putting Assange away will not stop Wikileaks - it is closing the barn door well after the horses are gone.

I don't think that Obama himself is that interested in prosecuting Assange, but there are other Democrats with the highest level of security clearance who are, including: VP Biden, Sen. Feinstein and Sec. of State Clinton. Since the average American does not have access to such intelligence, we may never fully know what is behind the desire to go after Assange.

and since this is also part of a military investigation, he might have to respect any military proceedings that may have occured in secret. VP Biden is also an important part of administration decision-making, due to his background. Obama rarely makes decisions in a vacuum.

And intends to try him in civilian court. If Assange is renditioned and sent to Gitmo and a military tribunal, then the rules are made up as they go along.

He doesn't have any proof of this; it's just speculation.

because there isn't good law to support such a prosecution, but Assange himself is making this more difficult by his continual anti-American posturing -- so the U.S. can't just quietly drop the case.

in fact there may even be a sealed indictment which, according to the rules cited by S4P below, must be kept secret until the defendant is in custody. The Washington Post article made it clear that Holder was attempting to prepare a case. The Administration claims that the likelihood of prosecution is decreasing as time goes on, but that doesn't mean that if an opportunity presents itself that they won't act on it.

have the effect of making it more difficult for the Obama administration to just let the matter go.

And that seems dumb. Even if Assange's attorney really thought this prosecution was ongoing, there would be no advantage to making these statements. Holder, if he were still actively involved in this case, wouldn't back off because of perceived pressure from this lawyer. But because of these statements, Holder has to be careful now not to appear to be backing down under pressure.

So I think the only logical reason the lawyer's doing this is that it serves as an excuse for why he isn't willing to go to Sweden to face possible charges of rape.

24 August 2012 Last updated at 21:54 ET

... the emergency OAS meeting provided an irresistible opportunity for Ecuador to tweak Britain over perceived diplomatic threats that may or may not have been made and the United States over an extradition of Mr Assange that may but probably will never occur. A number of hemispheric neighbours were happy to pile on.

But this faux row involves a healthy dose of hypocrisy ...

It is impossible to distinguish Mr Assange's actions from those of the mainstream media, including venerable outlets like The New York Times. The Obama administration undoubtedly recognises that prospective global reputational risk which is why it has concentrated on the prosecution of the alleged sender, Private First Class Bradley Manning, rather than the receivers ...

Inevitably, Ecuador will seek to resolve the Assange matter. He will certainly wear out his welcome in Knightsbridge. But the country's public grandstanding will make a quick resolution very difficult ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19373707