Name all of the anti-terrorist laws.

Just imagine for a moment you're in possession of evidence of the highly questionable behaviour of Governments all over the world - what would YOU do with it Peter?

Are you prepared to keep it quiet or shout it out as loudly as possible so that citizens of the world understand what goes on in "their" name?

Two points I would make here. Firstly anyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Secondly, Julian Assange is entitled to representation. Making defamatory comments about Julian Burnside is childish.

Questionable according to whom? Are you suggesting every individual, regardless of their nationality, affiliations or position in an armed conflict, should have the right to examine every action of every participant from one side only? Then to judge them, according to their own standard of morality? Where is the presumption of innocence for combatants engaged in fighting for their lives? Oh? They don't count, that's right... What of innocent local people, working to make their Country a better, more equitable and fair place in which their children are going to grow up... They don't count, provided only that they support the same side as the USA, correct?

I'd be interested to know what our little elitist cabal would think of someone who provided the names of every person who served with the Bosnian or Macedonian forces to the Serbian Army? I mean, I personally disagree with what the Bosnian and Macedonian forces did, so that would make it alright, no? The truth is far more important than ensuring they didn't meet the awful fate that would be in store for them.

Assange has offered to answer the Swedish charges. It is the Swedes who refuse to allow him to answer the charges in England but insist on exposing him to the risk of being extradited further.

In respect to comment reply to Peter Sommerville, "In possession of evidence of highly questionable behaviour of governments (institutions) etc etc",. That would depend on how one is reared.
Most (not all) of us who are Catholics would know better for fear of retribution and delegated to hell, the accused being a law unto themselves.
Hence the years of cover-ups that only now an Inquiry, (not Royal Commission as recommended), is called for to deal with the aftermath.
No Australian Human Rights advocates with gumption to speak up, Catholic or other.
So there, it's across the board.

Also how may Afghans have been killed because of the release of the cables? There has not been one word about that from the clamouring elites.

About 1 million dead in Iraq so far?
As for Military in Afghanistan & Pakistan..who knows so far?? And Libya so far? Syria so far?

...In my view the cables are perhaps about preventing unnecessary and continuing deaths...INCLUDING our own forces....and also, preventing hugely more future deaths IF the public ever gets some truth & facts to enable them to contribute to debate and VOTE on it.....

Mark's point is important - has he got people killed? If so, he's scum in need of hanging, if not, just a larrikin we should be protecting.

In the waging of a war of aggression against Iraq, war criminals and mass murderers George Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard did not merely commit crimes against peace. They also bankrupted the US economy, triggered Peak Oil, lengthened the occupation of Afghanistan, and triggered the global financial crisis.

That same John Howard, who also dismissed the now 1.4 million Iraqi civilian dead as 'collateral damage', nevertheless received a servile apology from the ABC’s show host for having a shoe thrown in his direction in an ABC Q&A interview in 2010!

Far from being appalled by such stupidity, Rudd, Gillard, Blair, and their fellow sycophants fawn on Obama’s (nearly bankrupt) Imperial America and NATO’s casual aggression.

Clearly the Iraq debacle has done nothing to sate the bloodlust of the militarists and warmongers. As Hard Rightists so frequently demonstrate, they obviously see their nation’s wealth as nothing more than a piggy bank, to be plundered to bankroll their latest Crusade, the people who generate that wealth to be left to deteriorating health, social welfare and housing as those lords of the manor sacrifice nations to their megalomania.

Messrs Bush, Blair and Howard have killed a huge number of people. Does James agree that they are "scum in need of hanging"? Or is James seeking to vilify Assange regardless, and working back from that to try and find a plausible reason?

@ Mark Goyne

It has been confirmed that no one has ever been killed or injured as a result of the release of information from Wikileaks.

May I also remind you that Wikileaks gave Washington the opportunity to vet the cables before they were dumped to remove any personal information that may compromise an individual. Washington declined this offer from Wikileaks.

Confirmed by whom?

Kate, have you got a link to that confirmation? Cheers.

No. There are several pretty serious laws regarding espionage however. I always wondered whether this clever individual would actually be willing to stand by his oft-cited principles when it came time to pay for deliberately encouraging others to breach them, as well as breaching them himself. A principle you aren't willing to defend (to the death if need be), is no principle at all. Funny how he was willing to sacrifice others, I bet PFC Manning is wishing he was able to seek asylum right about now.

Assange has not broken any laws in relation to espionage. Even if he was on US soil when the big cable dump was published he could not have been charged with any espionage law as he had not intimidated or coerced any individual into handing him that information; he merely published the information he was anonymously given, which is perfectly legal in the US.

If Bradley Manning is indeed responsible for sending that information to Wikileaks, it is sad to say that he has broken US espionage laws. If he is responsible he is no less a hero and his treatment by US government (regardless) is despicable.

@ Geoff Taylor

The ironic position of the US government is that Obama has actively stood up for better protection of whistleblowers. From memory (and I apologise but cannot quote the source) I am led to believe that the Obama government has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other US government. Hypocrisy, much?

Kate, I am so impressed by your obious knowledge about US military law. When did you gain this knowledge?

I listened to this speech and I thought to myself. So an Australian citizen wanted by both the Swedish and UK justice systems makes a speech on a balcony from a South American embassy telling the USA which of its policies it should change.
Great, I thought.
I wonder which of the USA presidential candidates will be agreeing with him shortly, and praising him in in one of the upcoming Presidential debates.
Perhaps some of those commenting here might like to advise as I am not sure which is more likely to announce their support for Julian Assange first.

Phillip Dowling says "I wonder which of the USA presidential candidates will be agreeing with him shortly..."

Well the US State dept. FINALLY DID SAY SOMETHING today...even if it did not seem true to me....and they did NOT answer the crucial questions.

They did NOT rule out taking extradition and other actions against Assange....

So if you think they don't care you are wrong....the whole world is watching......

They attacked Assanges credibility (which is the name of the game) .....the old inversion trick!

Has the Australian government ever allowed the extradition of Australian citizens to face drug charges in countries where a death penalty is a possibility?

The Australian government is wanting to hang Assange out to dry for his temerity in publishing the list of Internet sites the Australian government wanted to ban our looking at. Like so many governments, they are not only obsessed with banning our reading or seeing certain materials, they are determined to hide from us any accurate idea of what they are hiding.

To make it worse, the Wikileaks release reportedly showed that the government was lying about what it was planning to ban, and that the list showed signs of the input from pressure groups who would seem to have had access to the process while ordinary citizens did not.

In what way has it clearly effected Afghans?

The onus was not on Wikileaks to make any deletions at all. As a publishing agency they did their job - to publish credible information. Wikileaks verify all documents to ensure their source prior to publication. I reiterate that no individual has been harmed, ever, as a result of information published on Wikileaks. A few embarrassed governments, perhaps, but that is all.

So, Kate, what particular expertise do you have that allows you to make such claims?
Wikileaks verify all documents to ensure their source prior to publication. I reiterate that no individual has been harmed, ever, as a result of information published on Wikileaks.
I put it to you that your claim is not verifiable given the number of people involved and the number of people who have read them and the level of intelligence and the psychological health of some of them.
I take it that you have read them all.