Wikileaks founder Julian Assange fears he could be arrested

Crime • August 2010 • Views: 2,014

I dearly hope he is arrested, especially given the lies in the last paragraph excerpted. He claims Manning is being denied civil representation by way of a second Guantanamo. Well the suspect is subject to the UCMJ and will certainly have a military, not civil lawyer to represent the defendant. I think he pulled that description of the holding facility right out of the air.

telegraph.co.uk

Wikileaks founder fears he could be arrested

“In terms of returning to the United States I don’t know. Our sources advise from inside the US government that there were thoughts of whether I could be charged as a co-conspirator to espionage, which is serious.

“That doesn’t seem to be the thinking within the United States any more however there is the other possibility of being detained as a material witness and being kept either in confinement or not being allowed to leave the country until the Manning case is concluded.”

He also claimed that Bradley Manning is being held in a secluded facility in Kuwait which he says is like “a second Guantanamo Bay”.

He also accused the US government of doing this to “hide” Mr Manning from effective civil representation.

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

40 comments

captdiggs Mon, Aug 2, 2010 5:56:44pm

I find this to be alarming

From the article:

"Julian Assange, the Australian founder of Wikileaks, has said he has been warned by "inside sources in the White House" not to return to the US as he could be arrested. "

Per his claim, someone in the White House is aiding his evasion of prosecution.

Political Atheist Mon, Aug 2, 2010 6:08:08pm

re: #1 captdiggs

If you believe him. Not sure I do. But if true careers must end.

Henchman 25 Mon, Aug 2, 2010 6:36:06pm

Yeah. This kinda stuff tends to happen when you leak classified documents onto a public webpage.

Max Mon, Aug 2, 2010 6:41:19pm

I hope they throw the book at Assange. That was incendiary, obnoxious, and unnecessary.

We didn't learn anything new, we knew about the ISI cooperation with the Taliban and the Haqqani network, we knew about Iran backing Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and we know that civilians are dying because of the human shield tactics of the Islamists.

It was a stunt by Assange to increase his own prestige and to make himself a martyr for the Loony Left.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 2, 2010 7:01:25pm

re: #4 Max D. Reinhardt

I hope they throw the book at Assange. That was incendiary, obnoxious, and unnecessary.

We didn't learn anything new, we knew about the ISI cooperation with the Taliban and the Haqqani network, we knew about Iran backing Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and we know that civilians are dying because of the human shield tactics of the Islamists.

It was a stunt by Assange to increase his own prestige and to make himself a martyr for the Loony Left.

Quite Concur. If at all possible, we should get an arrest warrant out for him. We should also think in terms of offensive cyberwar to crash his site and any system he uses. Make it plain that to win this war we'll do what we need to do.

Curt Mon, Aug 2, 2010 7:05:18pm

It's one thing to hate a politician's decisions, and another to hate them so much, you decide to toss the innocents to the wolves.

Just more antics of the "peace loving" left, that not all that long ago brought you the "killing Fields" of SE Asia...you know, because it was bad to have US troops there...

Dark_Falcon Mon, Aug 2, 2010 7:08:50pm

re: #6 Curt

It's one thing to hate a politician's decisions, and another to hate them so much, you decide to toss the innocents to the wolves.

Just more antics of the "peace loving" left, that not all that long ago brought you the "killing Fields" of SE Asia...you know, because it was bad to have US troops there...

Indeed. Julian Assange has taken his place alongside John Kerry and Jane Fonda. Assholes and enablers of totalitarianism all.

HelloDare Mon, Aug 2, 2010 7:15:29pm

Mr. Assange obviously doesn't consider Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the bad guys.

His comments also offered insight into his own motivation, referring to a statement he gave to German newspaper Der Spiegel in which he said he "loved crushing bastards."
He said the comment wasn't meant in jest, describing himself as a combative person who likes "stopping people who have created victims from creating any more."

Assange also expressed disdain for the military, invoking a quotation attributed to mathematician and noted pacifist Albert Einstein that describes soldiers as contemptible drones and attacks patriotism as a cover for brutality and war.

He scoffed when the Frontline's moderator spoke of teenage British soldiers "giving their lives" in Afghanistan.

"To what?" he asked.

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 9:05:00pm

I'm late to this page, but my opinion is the guy/gal who leaked the docs to Assange is the guilty party.

Didn't we go through this already with the NYT/Pentagon Papers?

It's awful that this leak named names, that's where I fault Assange. But to publish something handed to you? (assuming you fact check that the thing handed to you is legit - Buttbart)

Can't be restricted by the government. Like libel, they can sue after you release/publish something. But to be charged with a crime for publishing? No. not yet at least...

Curt Mon, Aug 2, 2010 9:54:05pm

re: #9 Stanley Sea

It's awful that this leak named names, that's where I fault Assange. But to publish something handed to you? (assuming you fact check that the thing handed to you is legit - Buttbart)

Can't be restricted by the government. Like libel, they can sue after you release/publish something. But to be charged with a crime for publishing? No. not yet at least...

Yes, it's awful. There are people who are known to chop off heads with dull and rusty knifes for sport in this "game." Unless someone has been under a rock for the last decade, they couldn't have missed that fact, and Theo Van Gogh didn't either.

Through a set of legal filters, I'm sure you may be correct. Question: Would you harbor a murderer on the grounds you didn't commit the murder? There is a Federal law covering "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" you know. This sort of thing looks like it fits that matter, and no, you don't have to be "from the Gov't" to be charged, and yes, the young man who breached security: He'll get his day in court, before his long, long term in prison, if found guilty.

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 10:18:50pm

re: #10 Curt

Yes, it's awful. There are people who are known to chop off heads with dull and rusty knifes for sport in this "game." Unless someone has been under a rock for the last decade, they couldn't have missed that fact, and Theo Van Gogh didn't either.

Through a set of legal filters, I'm sure you may be correct. Question: Would you harbor a murderer on the grounds you didn't commit the murder? There is a Federal law covering "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" you know. This sort of thing looks like it fits that matter, and no, you don't have to be "from the Gov't" to be charged, and yes, the young man who breached security: He'll get his day in court, before his long, long term in prison, if found guilty.

Throughout this experience, beginning on 9/11, one by one, American's are willing to give up the rights and principals America was founded on. Yes, I am looking at the abstract. You are concerned with rusty knives. I refuse to give up a free press.

This is exactly the result intended by terrorism. To change our behaviors to the point that we weaken.

HelloDare Mon, Aug 2, 2010 10:49:42pm

Taliban starting to retaliate against Afghan "collaborators"named in Wikileaks U.S. Intel documents

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react.

A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered.

Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:07:49pm

re: #12 HelloDare

Is the guy still in the military? Court Marshall? Is he in custody? I guess I can look it up.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:17:57pm

Stanley, the free press does not murder people or incite murder.

Do not the "shield laws" demanded by journalists also undermine the free press? In fact they do. Wikileaks routs its servers through Sweden and Belgium specifically because those countries have the strongest journalist shield laws in the world. You can be jailed there for publishing the name of a journalist's confidential source. American journalists demand similar protection for their own sources. How ironic then that these self-same journalists claim total immunity to the consequences of publishing sensitive government secrets.

Perhaps we should recognize that the journalism profession is not synonymous with the free press, since the vested interest of that profession would appear to have no problem with inhibiting freedom of the press when it is in their parochial interest. Other examples abound, documented here and elsewhere, most notably the complicity of various journalists with dictators who do not recognize freedom of the press at all.

Perhaps the CIA and the military should have themselves declared journalists (they do a hell of a lot of publishing after all), declare their agents to be confidential sources, and demand that Belgium or Sweden arrest Assange and his co-conspirators under their draconian press shield laws.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:21:27pm

We are not giving up any established freedoms by demanding Assange's prosecution. It has only been since the 1970s, and the Pentagon Papers case, that journalists have demanded the right to betray national secrets with impunity. Up to that time, there are centuries of common-law and statutory precedent for such revelations being considered out of bounds.

Curt Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:23:42pm

Throughout this experience, beginning on 9/11, one by one, American's are willing to give up the rights and principals America was founded on. Yes, I am looking at the abstract. You are concerned with rusty knives. I refuse to give up a free press.
This is exactly the result intended by terrorism. To change our behaviors to the point that we weaken.

What is so noble about breaching established security measures that makes the press free? I'm just not seeing the connection. And I really don't get how prosecuting a war successfully, keeping secrets secret make us weak.

Your premise seems to be that freedom is something unencumbered by rational protection against an enemy who is headed your and my way, not just on the battle field. Will you change your tune when the bomber does himself in at the local Chuck E Cheese during a birthday party?

My point is the moral judgment should come into play. How free are the Afghan families as a result? They helped us go after the enemy. Is that immoral and therefore we need the "free press" to expose the fact our military, horror of horrors! is using informants to keep from having suicide bombers enter the base camp and villages and to locate the perpetrators and bring them to justice?

I might be inclined to jump in with you if this shows there was direct violations of the UCMJ that were being covered up, but not just regular after action and battle reports.

If you assume every service member deployed is chomping at the bit to commit a war crime, then I'd comprehend, yet not agree with your assessment. I don't believe you are thinking along that vein, so, is it not better to know the vast majority of our troops are acting within the established ROE and UCMJ, and when someone does get out the box, it's handled? After all, it was the Army that uncovered Abu Gahrib (sp?), and then the "free press" had a field day reporting that the chain of command had a failure and the chain of command was taking the proper action as a result. Yeah, I'm glad they "exposed" that one, because it was being handled IAW the UCMJ.

The best I can recall of the "free press" is they relish in embarrassing the chain of command, not because someone needs to be reigned in, but because they can as a point of "GOTCHA!", and it has been usually been to let the world know how we are tracking those who would plan major "man made disasters" in the midst of someone's civilian populations, around the world.

Your rights shall be eroded, so long as "we" print information that allows the enemy to evade capture, and more stringent efforts have to be put in place to protect you, therefore actually making the "doves" the ones who extend the war, and the "hawks" the ones who want to get it done and get home, which, when done sooner rather than later, actually results in less death...on both sides.

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:27:07pm

re: #14 Shiplord Kirel

Yes. Excellent points Ship. I don't know a lot of this.

Bottom line: Can Assange be charged under current US law?

I guess that's my question of this thread. My take: I see emotion wanting to override law.

If US Law doesn't apply, it's an emotional wish.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:31:37pm

re: #17 Stanley Sea

Yes. Excellent points Ship. I don't know a lot of this.

Bottom line: Can Assange be charged under current US law?

I guess that's my question of this thread. My take: I see emotion wanting to override law.

If US Law doesn't apply, it's an emotional wish.

Thanks, Stanley. I'm not a lawyer and I never even played one on TV but it seems possible he could be charged with complicity in the murder of US agents, since he knew this was a likely consequence of publication. The same laws that were cited in the Valerie Plame uproar would probably be applicable here.
He probably cannot be charged for the leak itself since he never had authorized access and did not acquire them by theft.

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:31:41pm

re: #15 Shiplord Kirel

We are not giving up any established freedoms by demanding Assange's prosecution. It has only been since the 1970s, and the Pentagon Papers case, that journalists have demanded the right to betray national secrets with impunity. Up to that time, there are centuries of common-law and statutory precedent for such revelations being considered out of bounds.

I see it so simplistically. Stuff lands on my lap, I publish.

How would the regulation/law about stuff landing on your lap read:

If it is classified, you cannot publish
If it is not classified, you can publish
If it is heresy, you can publish
If it is from an anonymous source, you can publish

Where will this get us?

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:32:39pm

re: #16 Curt

Your trust is admirable.

Mine is not.

HelloDare Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:38:49pm

re: #11 Stanley Sea

Throughout this experience, beginning on 9/11, one by one, American's are willing to give up the rights and principals America was founded on. Yes, I am looking at the abstract. You are concerned with rusty knives. I refuse to give up a free press.

This is exactly the result intended by terrorism. To change our behaviors to the point that we weaken.

That's good in theory. It's one thing for, say, a newspaper to have documents dropped into their lap. It's another matter if they are complicit in obtaining the material in the first place -- arranging for secret documents to be stolen.

Pentagon investigates MIT Wikileaks links

The Pentagon is investigating whether computer experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology may have assisted the American soldier suspected of leaking secret documents about the Afghanistan war.

US army investigators are understood to have interviewed several MIT graduates who may have communicated with Private Bradley Manning, the prime suspect in the criminal inquiry in to the leaks.

The investigation is potentially embarrassing for MIT, one of the most prestigious colleges in America which has educated some of the world’s top technology executives.

Pte Manning was arrested in June on suspicion of leaking sensitive information to Wikileaks, the website which published the Afghan war documents last week. He is alleged to have boasted that he leaked tens of thousands of documents to the website.

Pte Manning, 22, was returned to America last Friday and the FBI is now helping the Pentagon in the hunt to find those who may have assisted the alleged leaker.

Adrian Lamo, the former computer hacker who tipped off the authorities about Pte Manning, has alleged that two students at MIT told him they had assisted the soldier.

Mr Lamo also claimed that both men were working for Wikileaks. It is thought that both men have been interviewed by the investigation team...

Would it be acceptable if only one person died because the information was released? How about ten people? Ten thousand? Or is that a question that Wikileaks should not be concerned with?

What if Wikileaks had been around on June 6, 1944 and had given away the plans for D-Day?

The Free Press is not an absolute. Neither is Free Speech. There are things you can't print and there are things you can't yell in a crowded theater. We can make decisions on what those things are without giving up freedom of the press and free speech.

The decisions are easier to make if you can figure out who the good guys are and who are the ones that want to destroy society, kill apostates and throw acid in the faces of young women who want to get an education. Obviously to Mr. Assange of Wikileaks, the guys fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the bastards.

... His comments also offered insight into his own motivation, referring to a statement he gave to German newspaper Der Spiegel in which he ( Assange ) said he "loved crushing bastards."

He said the comment wasn't meant in jest, describing himself as a combative person who likes "stopping people who have created victims from creating any more."

Assange also expressed disdain for the military, invoking a quotation attributed to mathematician and noted pacifist Albert Einstein that describes soldiers as contemptible drones and attacks patriotism as a cover for brutality and war.

He scoffed when the Frontline's moderator spoke of teenage British soldiers "giving their lives" in Afghanistan.

"To what?" he asked.

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:42:04pm

re: #18 Shiplord Kirel

Thanks, Stanley. I'm not a lawyer and I never even played one on TV but it seems possible he could be charged with complicity in the murder of US agents, since he knew this was a likely consequence of publication. The same laws that were cited in the Valerie Plame uproar would probably be applicable here.
He probably cannot be charged for the leak itself since he never had authorized access and did not acquire them by theft.

Well, I guess we will see if someone dies because of this leak. But really, we won't even hear about it if that does occur.

Valerie Plame? The biggest crock. Lizards will go off on "she really wasn't undercover" bullshit to wipe away the unAmerican shit that happened to her. I am disgusted, and cannot refer to her case in anyway as precedent.

Ship, we can learn from each other. You, I understand has been in the thick of it - totally different aspect than me. Amazing.

HelloDare Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:46:46pm

re: #22 Stanley Sea

Well, I guess we will see if someone dies because of this leak. But really, we won't even hear about it if that does occur.

re: #12 HelloDare

Taliban starting to retaliate against Afghan "collaborators"named in Wikileaks U.S. Intel documents

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react.

A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered.

Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

Stanghazi Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:51:25pm

re: #21 HelloDare

Thanks for answering in a detailed post. Well, his MIT roommates and "associates" may be charged. (people who hung out with him at the concerts on the green are FREAKING OUT) We will see. Wait till it's legally decided. Again. Country of Laws.

Then you say:

The decisions are easier to make if you can figure out who the good guys are and who are the ones that want to destroy society, kill apostates and throw acid in the faces of young women who want to get an education. Obviously to Mr. Assange of Wikileaks, the guys fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the bastards.

Oh I really (believe me) respect your opinion and feelings.

But how we feel is not the law. Thank goodness. That's why law exists.

HelloDare Tue, Aug 3, 2010 12:05:35am

re: #24 Stanley Sea

What do feelings have to do with it? There's nothing in the paragraph you excerpted that mentions feelings.

Stanghazi Tue, Aug 3, 2010 12:31:03am

re: #25 HelloDare

What do feelings have to do with it? There's nothing in the paragraph you excerpted that mentions feelings.

Well, instead of feelings, how about assumptions?

The decisions are easier to make if you can figure out who the good guys are and who are the ones that want to destroy society, kill apostates and throw acid in the faces of young women who want to get an education. Obviously to Mr. Assange of Wikileaks, the guys fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the bastards

My entire point to commenting on this thread was in response to those who want to "put away" Assange. It's way more complicated than that. US Law is the bottom line. And I'm afraid that our fear and war mindset is causing us to easily give up some of our freedoms. trickle by trickle.

Show me the law where Assange can be prosecuted, I'll concur. Until then, it's an emotional/war driven desire.

HelloDare Tue, Aug 3, 2010 1:15:34am

re: #26 Stanley Sea

"Assumptions" makes even less sense.

Curt Tue, Aug 3, 2010 1:45:17am

re: #20 Stanley Sea

Your trust is admirable.

Mine is not.

I challenge you to find a nation where you can find more trust in the system. Seriously, look around in world news and understand theories are great, until they smack into the reality of what happens.

I also spent 20 years protecting your rights. I know a few people didt things wrong. They paid. The rest of them? They did it right. Out of a few millions vs a few, it's worth trusting, yet realizing some bad things still happen.

Passing around classified documents is somewhat like passing around stolen property, with far greater implication. If you're not cleared to have it, then you're in violation of the law. Otherwise, what's the point of classifying anything at all?

Curt Tue, Aug 3, 2010 1:52:38am

re: #26 Stanley Sea

My entire point to commenting on this thread was in response to those who want to "put away" Assange. It's way more complicated than that. US Law is the bottom line. And I'm afraid that our fear and war mindset is causing us to easily give up some of our freedoms. trickle by trickle.

Show me the law where Assange can be prosecuted, I'll concur. Until then, it's an emotional/war driven desire.

"Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" - Treason. That's a really bad law to break. Max penalty? Death sentence.

So, depending on the charges filed, that one could well fit. In the elements of the crime, you'd have to do it knowingly. What he did would have have to be provable as allowing the enemy to have an advantage. That's where the lawyers do the hand wringing, but, it certainly could fit, and Pvt Manning would be in that arena, too, but charged under the UCMJ.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was a collateral duty legal officer for two years, and got 5 weeks of school to handle such issues at sea. Sat as a Summary Courts Martial Officer, too.

I'm not interested in putting him away because of feelings, in fact, I see he was consciously and specifically publishing classified military information, and that is against the law.

ShaunP Tue, Aug 3, 2010 6:11:36am

re: #29 Curt

"Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" - Treason. That's a really bad law to break. Max penalty? Death sentence.

So, depending on the charges filed, that one could well fit. In the elements of the crime, you'd have to do it knowingly. What he did would have have to be provable as allowing the enemy to have an advantage. That's where the lawyers do the hand wringing, but, it certainly could fit, and Pvt Manning would be in that arena, too, but charged under the UCMJ.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was a collateral duty legal officer for two years, and got 5 weeks of school to handle such issues at sea. Sat as a Summary Courts Martial Officer, too.

I'm not interested in putting him away because of feelings, in fact, I see he was consciously and specifically publishing classified military information, and that is against the law.

FYI, treason only applies to US citizens. Assange is Australian...

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Tue, Aug 3, 2010 7:56:37am

[Link: www.democracynow.org...]

Julian Assange Responds to Increasing US Government Attacks on WikiLeaks

It’s been ten days since the whistleblower website WikiLeaks published the massive archive of classified military records about the war in Afghanistan, but the fallout in Washington and beyond is far from over. Justice Department lawyers are reportedly exploring whether WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange could be charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for publishing the classified Afghan war documents. Meanwhile, investigators in the Army’s criminal division have reportedly questioned two students in Boston about their ties to WikiLeaks and Private First Class Bradley Manning, a leading suspect in the leak. We speak with WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

webevintage Tue, Aug 3, 2010 9:00:50am

Would it have hurt Assange and his "staff" to have gone though those documents and marked out real names and address before he released them?
Bastard.

Political Atheist Tue, Aug 3, 2010 9:52:46am

re: #9 Stanley Sea

You make a good point about freedom of the press. the price way are willing to pay becomes the real argument. It was already reported the Taliban have killed a tribal leader that worked with us and was in the report. I am deeply ashamed by this development. Our own lack of operational security cost him dearly. Friends we can hardly afford to lose there.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Aug 3, 2010 10:14:31am

Assange's only misdeed is failing to redact the documents such that names don't appear. Not doing so was stupid and destructive.

As for all this talk of treason and prosecution, he isn't an American citizen, and you can't charge a non-American with treason. It doesn't work that way.

Political Atheist Tue, Aug 3, 2010 10:27:05am

re: #34 Fozzie Bear

Hence the possibility of violating the espionage act of 1917. But in any case I would still favor his servers as practice targets for our internet ops military people.

Or-How about this? He gets extradited to Afghanistan so they can prosecute him, for the lives he recklessly endangered.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Aug 3, 2010 10:28:20am

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

Rule of law.

Extraordinary rendition is a disgusting travesty.

Political Atheist Tue, Aug 3, 2010 10:28:40am

Shoutout to kreyagg

I'd like to discuss your point of disagreement. If you are willing. I have no issue with the down ding, just curious as to your point.

Political Atheist Tue, Aug 3, 2010 10:30:33am

re: #36 Fozzie Bear

I said extradite, not render. Which is legal given the right paperwork.

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Aug 3, 2010 11:30:59am

re: #34 Fozzie Bear

Assange's only misdeed is failing to redact the documents such that names don't appear. Not doing so was stupid and destructive.

As for all this talk of treason and prosecution, he isn't an American citizen, and you can't charge a non-American with treason. It doesn't work that way.

He is an Australian citizen however. Australia currently has 1500 troops in Afghanistan. Their mission is mainly oriented toward training the Afghans but there is a sizable SAS special ops component. Both missions involve extensive cooperation with Afghan nationals. It is not hard to see that the wikileaks revelations could endanger both the Australians and their Afghan allies.
Australia itself can prosecute Assange. Whether the current government is willing to do so is anybody's guess however.

Gus Tue, Aug 3, 2010 3:36:49pm

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 793
§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the...

[...]

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Continues.