Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[softgeorge]

US planning Assange charges: emails

US prosecutors are drawing up secret charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, confidentials emails show.

Internal correspondence to analysts at Texan intelligence think tank Statfor, published by Fairfax Media, details information from a US government source.

In the email, dated January 26, 2011, Statfor's vice-president of intelligence Fred Burton says: "We have a sealed indictment".

The information, obtained from a US government source, comes with the request not to publish.

Mr Burton is a former deputy chief of the counterterrorism division of the US State Department's diplomatic security service.

WikiLeaks has begun releasing more than five million Statfor emails, which Fairfax has accessed through its partnership with the whistleblower website.

9 News Aust - 10.30 am, Wednesday February 29 2012

[Wallaby]

Sweden's Foreign Minister implicated as well

International whistleblower website WikiLeaks says it intends to publish a classified document that allegedly exposes Sweden’s current Foreign Minister as a spy for the United States.

http://intelnews.org/2012/02/23/01-934/

[GentlemanJim]

Sweden's Foreign Minister implicated as well

International whistleblower website WikiLeaks says it intends to publish a classified document that allegedly exposes Sweden’s current Foreign Minister as a spy for the United States.

http://intelnews.org...2/02/23/01-934/

Everything comes out in the wash! This could get really really interesting. Isn't it about time diplomats started using secure, encrypted communication methods!

[Wallaby]

Sweden's Foreign Minister implicated as well

International whistleblower website WikiLeaks says it intends to publish a classified document that allegedly exposes Sweden’s current Foreign Minister as a spy for the United States.

http://intelnews.org...2/02/23/01-934/

Everything comes out in the wash! This could get really really interesting. Isn't it about time diplomats started using secure, encrypted communication methods!

Back to the days of the pigeon I think.

[chuckd]

Let me ask a question. Why do all the Aussies fervently believe Assange has done nothing wrong and is so severely mistreated? Is it simply nationalistic pride or is there yet another reason involved.

Do all Aussies believe Assange? What makes you think his Nationality has something to do with it?

Do all American fervently believe Assange is guilty because their national pride is hurt? Or who comes that you think it would be a case of Australian national pride when they support him?

1. Probably. It certainly looks that way.

2. Because Aussies are traditionally very nationalistic. If you aren't an Aussie, do you know any of them?

3. I don't know how other Americans feel about Assange but many don't like hackers and fences. I detest the man and his actions, both in and out of bed. He is a contemptible character and a convicted felon. My feelings about this guy are well documented on the forum.

4. Huh? The question in your sentence is unclear.

You say he is a convicted felon.... What has he been convicted of???

Assange admitted guilt on 25 of 31 charges.

"It took three years to bring the case to court, where he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes. Nortel said his incursions cost them more than $100,000. Assange's lawyers represented his hacking as a victimless crime. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking, after six charges were dropped, and was released on bond for good conduct with a fine of A$2,100.[2][54] The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers"[2] and stated that Assange would have gone to jail for up to 10 years if he had not had such a disrupted childhood.[52]"

http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Assange

[koheesti]

Sweden's Foreign Minister implicated as well

International whistleblower website WikiLeaks says it intends to publish a classified document that allegedly exposes Sweden’s current Foreign Minister as a spy for the United States.

http://intelnews.org...2/02/23/01-934/

Everything comes out in the wash! This could get really really interesting. Isn't it about time diplomats started using secure, encrypted communication methods!

Back to the days of the pigeon I think.

If I were in charge I would have emails sent back and forth saying all kinds of nonsense in the event they are all released like this in the future. Maybe start with emails mentioning payments to Assange involving some bizarre sexual favors involving animals or something. You could have a heckuva lot of fun making the stuff up.

[Wallaby]

Assange admitted guilt on 25 of 31 charges.

"It took three years to bring the case to court, where he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes. Nortel said his incursions cost them more than $100,000. Assange's lawyers represented his hacking as a victimless crime. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking, after six charges were dropped, and was released on bond for good conduct with a fine of A$2,100.[2][54] The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers"[2] and stated that Assange would have gone to jail for up to 10 years if he had not had such a disrupted childhood.[52]"

http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Assange

I don't know how the judicial system works in the US but I do know it is different to oz. Now not wishing to be pedantic, the confusion is where you say he is a convicted felon.

I haven't heard of the term 'felon' other than on US tv shows. In oz they are just called criminals. However, the point is the 'convicted'. A person can be found guilty of a number of charges but still not convicted of anything. Usually a judge will stipulate there is 'conviction recorded' or 'no conviction recorded'. Those sent to jail have an automatic conviction recorded.

This allows people applying for passports etc to say they have never been convicted of an offence, even if they have been found guilty and sentenced to offences.

I believe in Assange's case there was no conviction recorded. So Assange is actually not a convicted felon.

In any event, it seems things are starting to hot up regarding the US and Assange. Makes for interesting times.

[chuckd]

Assange admitted guilt on 25 of 31 charges.

"It took three years to bring the case to court, where he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes. Nortel said his incursions cost them more than $100,000. Assange's lawyers represented his hacking as a victimless crime. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking, after six charges were dropped, and was released on bond for good conduct with a fine of A$2,100.[2][54] The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers"[2] and stated that Assange would have gone to jail for up to 10 years if he had not had such a disrupted childhood.[52]"

http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Assange

I don't know how the judicial system works in the US but I do know it is different to oz. Now not wishing to be pedantic, the confusion is where you say he is a convicted felon.

I haven't heard of the term 'felon' other than on US tv shows. In oz they are just called criminals. However, the point is the 'convicted'. A person can be found guilty of a number of charges but still not convicted of anything. Usually a judge will stipulate there is 'conviction recorded' or 'no conviction recorded'. Those sent to jail have an automatic conviction recorded.

This allows people applying for passports etc to say they have never been convicted of an offence, even if they have been found guilty and sentenced to offences.

I believe in Assange's case there was no conviction recorded. So Assange is actually not a convicted felon.

In any event, it seems things are starting to hot up regarding the US and Assange. Makes for interesting times.

In the US he would have a felony conviction.

I particularly liked what the judge said. Due to Assange's troubled childhood, he was giving him a suspended sentence and fine rather than a possible 10 years in prison. Could the judge have been exercising a little judicial pity there?

[chuckd]

Sweden's Foreign Minister implicated as well

International whistleblower website WikiLeaks says it intends to publish a classified document that allegedly exposes Sweden’s current Foreign Minister as a spy for the United States.

http://intelnews.org...2/02/23/01-934/

Everything comes out in the wash! This could get really really interesting. Isn't it about time diplomats started using secure, encrypted communication methods!

Back to the days of the pigeon I think.

If I were in charge I would have emails sent back and forth saying all kinds of nonsense in the event they are all released like this in the future. Maybe start with emails mentioning payments to Assange involving some bizarre sexual favors involving animals or something. You could have a heckuva lot of fun making the stuff up.

Being a long time subscriber to Stratfor I was sent a number of e-mails after the hacking was announced from a site pretending to be Stratfor. These e-mails were seeking personal information, which I did not volunteer.

If the hackers did not send the e-mails, how did they get my e-mail address and know I was a subscriber to Stratfor?

Why does everybody believe everything a hacker prints is the truth? They can change the content of any hacked e-mail they wish to better fit their own agenda.

In the case of hackers..."Caveat emptor".

[Wallaby]

In the US he would have a felony conviction.

I particularly liked what the judge said. Due to Assange's troubled childhood, he was giving him a suspended sentence and fine rather than a possible 10 years in prison. Could the judge have been exercising a little judicial pity there?

Agree with your sarcasm, just a 'little' pity. Same old thing, try and scare the shit out of him so he doesn't do it again.

Didn't quite have the desired effect.

[chuckd]

This news out today...and, yes, I saw the word "suspected".

Interpol says suspected Anonymous hackers arrested

By GREG KELLER | Associated Press – 49 mins ago

PARIS (AP) — Interpol said that 25 suspected members of the loose-knit Anonymous hacker movement have been arrested in a sweep across Europe and South America.

The international police agency said in a statement Tuesday that the arrests in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Spain were carried out by national law enforcement officers working under the support of Interpol's Latin American Working Group of Experts on Information Technology Crime.

The suspects, aged between 17 and 40, are suspected of planning coordinated cyberattacks against institutions including Colombia's defense ministry and presidential websites, Chile's Endesa electricity company and national library, as well as other targets.

http://news.yahoo.com/interpol-says-suspected-anonymous-hackers-arrested-232447517.html

[Wallaby]

I have no problem at all with the hackers being arrested. They are a right pain in the ass and what they do costs companies a lot of money in protection.

Though this doesn't have anything to do with what Assange is being hunted for. He never hacked anything, Manning is, and should be, dealt with. All Assange did is the same as what the editors of the newspapers did.

I agree with what another poster said, I think it was Koheesti? Govt's should start sending ridiculous emails so that if anything gets public they can then say that it is just a bullshit email and you can't discern the fact from fiction.

[softgeorge]

Assange admitted guilt on 25 of 31 charges.

"It took three years to bring the case to court, where he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes. Nortel said his incursions cost them more than $100,000. Assange's lawyers represented his hacking as a victimless crime. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking, after six charges were dropped, and was released on bond for good conduct with a fine of A$2,100.[2][54] The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers"[2] and stated that Assange would have gone to jail for up to 10 years if he had not had such a disrupted childhood.[52]"

http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Assange

I don't know how the judicial system works in the US but I do know it is different to oz. Now not wishing to be pedantic, the confusion is where you say he is a convicted felon.

I haven't heard of the term 'felon' other than on US tv shows. In oz they are just called criminals. However, the point is the 'convicted'. A person can be found guilty of a number of charges but still not convicted of anything. Usually a judge will stipulate there is 'conviction recorded' or 'no conviction recorded'. Those sent to jail have an automatic conviction recorded.

This allows people applying for passports etc to say they have never been convicted of an offence, even if they have been found guilty and sentenced to offences.

I believe in Assange's case there was no conviction recorded. So Assange is actually not a convicted felon.

In any event, it seems things are starting to hot up regarding the US and Assange. Makes for interesting times.

In the US he would have a felony conviction.

I particularly liked what the judge said. Due to Assange's troubled childhood, he was giving him a suspended sentence and fine rather than a possible 10 years in prison. Could the judge have been exercising a little judicial pity there?

That is the U.S a place like no other on the planet. The U.S is just a little place on the globe and is not the world which is atually vast and not flat like some may think.

[softgeorge]

Assange admitted guilt on 25 of 31 charges.

"It took three years to bring the case to court, where he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes. Nortel said his incursions cost them more than $100,000. Assange's lawyers represented his hacking as a victimless crime. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking, after six charges were dropped, and was released on bond for good conduct with a fine of A$2,100.[2][54] The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers"[2] and stated that Assange would have gone to jail for up to 10 years if he had not had such a disrupted childhood.[52]"

http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Assange

I don't know how the judicial system works in the US but I do know it is different to oz. Now not wishing to be pedantic, the confusion is where you say he is a convicted felon.

I haven't heard of the term 'felon' other than on US tv shows. In oz they are just called criminals. However, the point is the 'convicted'. A person can be found guilty of a number of charges but still not convicted of anything. Usually a judge will stipulate there is 'conviction recorded' or 'no conviction recorded'. Those sent to jail have an automatic conviction recorded.

This allows people applying for passports etc to say they have never been convicted of an offence, even if they have been found guilty and sentenced to offences.

I believe in Assange's case there was no conviction recorded. So Assange is actually not a convicted felon.

In any event, it seems things are starting to hot up regarding the US and Assange. Makes for interesting times.

I agree with what you say except for one thing. In Australia they are no longer refered to as criminals in the new politically correct place, They are now refered to as "Offenders" Victoria Police even changed the name of the Criminal Records Branch to the Central Records Branch inline with the new warm and fluffy approach to Criminals, sorry offenders. Yes same dog different leg action but they must now be reffered to as offenders just like traffic offenders. The times are a changing and we must be more sensitive to criminals sorry offenders.

[bigbamboo]

I have no problem at all with the hackers being arrested. They are a right pain in the ass and what they do costs companies a lot of money in protection.

Though this doesn't have anything to do with what Assange is being hunted for. He never hacked anything, Manning is, and should be, dealt with. All Assange did is the same as what the editors of the newspapers did.

I agree with what another poster said, I think it was Koheesti? Govt's should start sending ridiculous emails so that if anything gets public they can then say that it is just a bullshit email and you can't discern the fact from fiction.

How will we know which are the government's bullshit emails?

[Wallaby]

I have no problem at all with the hackers being arrested. They are a right pain in the ass and what they do costs companies a lot of money in protection.

Though this doesn't have anything to do with what Assange is being hunted for. He never hacked anything, Manning is, and should be, dealt with. All Assange did is the same as what the editors of the newspapers did.

I agree with what another poster said, I think it was Koheesti? Govt's should start sending ridiculous emails so that if anything gets public they can then say that it is just a bullshit email and you can't discern the fact from fiction.

How will we know which are the government's bullshit emails?

We aren't supposed to know. That's the point. If we don't know then we can't be sure which are true and therefore can't really rely on their veracity.

[midas]

In any event, it seems things are starting to hot up regarding the US and Assange. Makes for interesting times.

Yes indeed.............

"

In a senate speech yesterday, Senator Ludlam said: “There is a fierce campaign afoot to destroy WikiLeaks: to discredit Mr Assange and his associates and colleagues and to set the organisation back—in fact, to simply destroy it.” He said: “We need to know what the role of the Australian government in this has been” and added that a series of freedom of information requests he initiated last year about why it was so difficult to disclose this kind of information were stonewalled, blocked, and met with excuses. He called on the Australian government to come clean on what it knows.

Senator Ludlam later moved a motion for the Senate to acknowledge that Mr Assange had been recognised as a journalist by organisations including the Walkley Foundation and the British High Court. “This was too frightening for the Labor Party and the Coalition. They sat there and voted against a list of seven undisputed facts. What could have got them so spooked?” asked the Greens media release."

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/03/01/greens-demand-govt-protect-assange/

[Wallaby]

Personally, if the US charges Assange and asks for extradition it should be agreed.........when the US agrees to allow it's own citizens to be extradited.

Bit of a nerve expected other countries to send their citizens to the US to face trial, or worse, a black hole when the US won't reciprocate.

[Scott]

That is a good point and I am sure one that will be taken into consideration in any extradition request.

Politicians often give speeches more for political reasons than for concern for right and wrong.

The most pressing need in this situation is for the US to ensure the security of it's information.

[Wallaby]

That is a good point and I am sure one that will be taken into consideration in any extradition request.

Politicians often give speeches more for political reasons than for concern for right and wrong.

The most pressing need in this situation is for the US to ensure the security of it's information.

I'm not so sure a judge would take that into consideration Scott. A Judge is bound by the laws of their own country and if the law says they can be extradited then that's pretty much it. I don't think they can take into consideration whether the US or any other country allows its citizens to be extradited.

I'm sure the oz govt won't lift a finger either. They are only too happy to go to Indonesia to plead clemency to their govt regarding people charged with drug offences etc but have not done a thing to help Assange or lobby the UK govt on his behalf.

The other issue is that our beloved Prime Minister has already declared him guilty of a crime. It was only when our Federal Police then told her that Assange actually hasn't done anything that could be considered illegal under our law that she realised she's a <deleted>. I don't think she has spoken about the matter in public at all since then.

So really, our govt is not going to do a thing to assist him, in fact our govt has already provided information to the US to assist them.

He's up the creek and being treated disgustingly by our govt.

End of rant....and beginning of a cold ale.

[chuckd]

In any event, it seems things are starting to hot up regarding the US and Assange. Makes for interesting times.

Yes indeed.............

"

In a senate speech yesterday, Senator Ludlam said: “There is a fierce campaign afoot to destroy WikiLeaks: to discredit Mr Assange and his associates and colleagues and to set the organisation back—in fact, to simply destroy it.” He said: “We need to know what the role of the Australian government in this has been” and added that a series of freedom of information requests he initiated last year about why it was so difficult to disclose this kind of information were stonewalled, blocked, and met with excuses. He called on the Australian government to come clean on what it knows.

Senator Ludlam later moved a motion for the Senate to acknowledge that Mr Assange had been recognised as a journalist by organisations including the Walkley Foundation and the British High Court. “This was too frightening for the Labor Party and the Coalition. They sat there and voted against a list of seven undisputed facts. What could have got them so spooked?” asked the Greens media release."

http://delimiter.com...rotect-assange/

This statement is taken from the same linked article:

______________________________________________________________

"opinion/analysis

I am personally highly ambivalent about Julian Assange. I do not personally believe that he is a journalist — what ethical journalist would report on information that had been obtained from a company by means of hacking its internal database, as rogue Internet group Anonymous appears to have done with Stratfor? None. It is unethical for journalists to report on material which has been illegally obtained. Furthermore, with some of the material which Wikileaks has released, it is far from clear that there is a public interest in it being released."

[Scott]

First, just for the record, I don't really have an opinion on the Assange matter vs. his guilt or innocence on any charges.

With regard to the extradition matter, we may have posters who are a little more knowledgeable about the in's and out's of extradition from a particular country, but I don't think the court has the final say in the matter. I believe the Foreign Ministry or a similar agency also has to approve and carry through with the extradition.

EU countries will routinely not consider extradition unless the US agrees to not use the death penalty.

[Wallaby]

In any event, it seems things are starting to hot up regarding the US and Assange. Makes for interesting times.

Yes indeed.............

"

In a senate speech yesterday, Senator Ludlam said: “There is a fierce campaign afoot to destroy WikiLeaks: to discredit Mr Assange and his associates and colleagues and to set the organisation back—in fact, to simply destroy it.” He said: “We need to know what the role of the Australian government in this has been” and added that a series of freedom of information requests he initiated last year about why it was so difficult to disclose this kind of information were stonewalled, blocked, and met with excuses. He called on the Australian government to come clean on what it knows.

Senator Ludlam later moved a motion for the Senate to acknowledge that Mr Assange had been recognised as a journalist by organisations including the Walkley Foundation and the British High Court. “This was too frightening for the Labor Party and the Coalition. They sat there and voted against a list of seven undisputed facts. What could have got them so spooked?” asked the Greens media release."

http://delimiter.com...rotect-assange/

This statement is taken from the same linked article:

______________________________________________________________

"opinion/analysis

I am personally highly ambivalent about Julian Assange. I do not personally believe that he is a journalist — what ethical journalist would report on information that had been obtained from a company by means of hacking its internal database, as rogue Internet group Anonymous appears to have done with Stratfor? None. It is unethical for journalists to report on material which has been illegally obtained. Furthermore, with some of the material which Wikileaks has released, it is far from clear that there is a public interest in it being released."

I understand what you say Chuck but I just want to confirm that there was actually no hacking involved in this. This is pure a simply a case of Manning having access to the documents and passing them on to Assange. I'm not sure if Manning hacked or actually had authorisation. In any event, Manning won't see the light of day again.

If Manning did have authorisation then he is seen in terms as a whistleblower. Many countries have laws in place to protect whistleblowers, well oz does anyway. But as I said, if he hacked then there is no defence for it, nor should there be.

I don't believe it is unethical to publish material that is illegally obtained. If that is the case then the editors of publications should be charged as they published the material.

I"m not too sure about this but from vague memory I think that most of the information from wikileaks wasn't published at all. They had the material and provided a code for the newspapers so that they could go in and publish it. I stand corrected if I am wrong in this.

However, even if Assange published the material one must also charge the editors that published it. There should not be fear nor favour when determining who should be charged. If it was illegal then everyone that did it should be charged. Justice should be 'seen' to be done.

In saying all that, if it is found that Assange coerced the information/cables out of Manning then I agree, he should be charged and dealt with accordingly. But if Manning simply gave him the docs then I can't see why he should be charged.

Now I'm going to get my 3rd beer and bid you a good evening.

[GentlemanJim]

First, just for the record, I don't really have an opinion on the Assange matter vs. his guilt or innocence on any charges.

With regard to the extradition matter, we may have posters who are a little more knowledgeable about the in's and out's of extradition from a particular country, but I don't think the court has the final say in the matter. I believe the Foreign Ministry or a similar agency also has to approve and carry through with the extradition.

EU countries will routinely not consider extradition unless the US agrees to not use the death penalty.

That is roughly correct. I guess the point is that when a US citizen is requested by any other country the US Government tell that country to ram it, long before it gets to a court. Other Governments world wide it seems have taken to kow towing to the US and extradite whomever the US want. The extradition process with the US seems to be an entirely one way process and it is about time Governments in other countries grew a pair and tell the US to ram it also.

[Scott]

Oh, I don't know that you are correct on one point....Roman Polanski, for example.

Oops, now I am going off-topic.

[chuckd]

First, just for the record, I don't really have an opinion on the Assange matter vs. his guilt or innocence on any charges.

With regard to the extradition matter, we may have posters who are a little more knowledgeable about the in's and out's of extradition from a particular country, but I don't think the court has the final say in the matter. I believe the Foreign Ministry or a similar agency also has to approve and carry through with the extradition.

EU countries will routinely not consider extradition unless the US agrees to not use the death penalty.

That is roughly correct. I guess the point is that when a US citizen is requested by any other country the US Government tell that country to ram it, long before it gets to a court. Other Governments world wide it seems have taken to kow towing to the US and extradite whomever the US want. The extradition process with the US seems to be an entirely one way process and it is about time Governments in other countries grew a pair and tell the US to ram it also.

Extradition requests are submitted to the US State Department. State then determines if the request meets the treaty requirements and forwards the request to the Justice Department. Justice Department reviews and, if they concur the treaty is being followed, forwards it to the Federal District Court where the suspect resides

Federal Judges then decide, with final appellate reviews all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Can you give us some examples of the US government telling a requesting nation to, in your words, "ram it"?

[midas]

First, just for the record, I don't really have an opinion on the Assange matter vs. his guilt or innocence on any charges.

With regard to the extradition matter, we may have posters who are a little more knowledgeable about the in's and out's of extradition from a particular country, but I don't think the court has the final say in the matter. I believe the Foreign Ministry or a similar agency also has to approve and carry through with the extradition.

EU countries will routinely not consider extradition unless the US agrees to not use the death penalty.

That is roughly correct. I guess the point is that when a US citizen is requested by any other country the US Government tell that country to ram it, long before it gets to a court. Other Governments world wide it seems have taken to kow towing to the US and extradite whomever the US want. The extradition process with the US seems to be an entirely one way process and it is about time Governments in other countries grew a pair and tell the US to ram it also.

but there is nothing " normal " about the proceedings in this case ....

CCR Condemns Reported Sealed Indictment Against WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange

" New York – Leaks published today from Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, indicate the United States Department of Justice has issued a secret, sealed indictment against Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:............................................................ likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order."

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-condemns-reported-sealed-indictment-against-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

[Ulysses G.]

If Manning did have authorisation then he is seen in terms as a whistleblower. Many countries have laws in place to protect whistleblowers, well oz does anyway.

I am only guessing, but I would be very surprised if the Australian whistleblower law applies to documents related to national security.

[Wallaby]

If Manning did have authorisation then he is seen in terms as a whistleblower. Many countries have laws in place to protect whistleblowers, well oz does anyway.

I am only guessing, but I would be very surprised if the Australian whistleblower law applies to documents related to national security.

I think you missed the point.

A whistleblower is usually someone that provides information illegally, usually because his/her contract forbids any public disclosure.

I didn't mean to insinuate that oz law applies to manning. I was commenting that maybe the US has a similar law. I don't know, but I do think the law has merit because it protects whistleblowers from prosecution if the information is in the public interest.

Of course those in the defence force may be a different kettle of fish. In any event, Manning is a goner and so he should be. I would think differently if all Manning did was release that video of the innocents being killed. But he didn't stop at that so deserves what he gets.

[midas]

In any event, Manning is a goner and so he should be. I would think differently if all Manning did was release that video of the innocents being killed. But he didn't stop at that so deserves what he gets.

some don't agree with you ....

" In sum, the documentsManning is alleged to have released revealed overwhelming deceit, corruption and illegality by the world's most powerful political actors."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/bradley-manning-deserves-a-medal