As far as I am aware, most of the countries claim democratic government – Government by the people for the people. These governments pass laws in contempt of the rights and welfare of many of the people, and want to conceal many from legitimate scrutiny. Concealing the reasons why these laws are made is really a crime against the people, and the people in the governments and others of powerful status who become frantic when despicable acts of parliament or of those powerful allies are brought to light. Sure, we have seen that Kennedy, ex President assassinated and more of them for various reasons, but surely, when someone brings out lots of information that we have every right to know, he should be protected, not conjured out of sight and hearing, we do have corrupt people in parliament, and in congress, Well, stupid anyway. “60 minutes in 2004, of George Bushes attack on Afghanistan” on the internet, should convince you of that – unless you belong to a political party, then you will only believe what your party tells you.

Assange probably can be charged under our sedition laws which John Howard beafed up to protect us from the the terrorists.In the US they have the Patriot Act and Preventative Detention .If they can find a way of labelling him as a terrorist,then he is gone and so are we.

Can't a country have privacy, We vote for govt; to run our affairs.
Someone comes along and aqires classified information and publishes it for the world to see. We did not vote for a world govt;
This bloke is a terrorist. Taking things into his own hands to embarrass
several governments. There is a case for treason with the publishing of vital sites and infastructure. What does anyone need to know that for.
To call this person Australian is somewhat over the top.
All this will achieve is a tightening of security.

579, how long have you been asleep, have you been hiding under a log or something. Wake up, this is the real world, and we have the same rights as anyone else, and more than those who try to destroy it. You have to be blind and dumb if you can't see and object to the wars and economic mess we have been forced into.

If I may, I would like to clarify two points.

1. I do see a distinction between the publication of sensitive material such as say, US anti-terrorist strategy in Yemen on the one hand, and say the publication of Kevin Rudd’s private views of China which contrast with those views he publicizes to the Australian electorate.

The former may very well put lives at risk of American and Allied military personnel. And the publication - by all media and not just WikiLeaks - cannot be defended.

But when it comes to politicians misleading their electorate such as Kevin Rudd’s wildly disparate views, it is clear that he lied to the Australian public or he lied to the United States Secretary of State.

Rudd can't have his dim sum and eat it too.

Similarly when Hillary Clinton was caught saying one thing in public about Russia and another to the American people, that too is indefensible. And let's not forget her directives to spy on the UN Secretary-General.

2. With respect to publishing material online, WikiLeaks is no different from say the Guardian and the New York Times. Why are they not been hounded up hill and down dale? Why only Assange? Are his connections in the corridors of power threadbare compared to Big Media's? It would seem so.

Point 2. is an excellent one - Wikileaks is a media organisation doing what media organisations do - publishing material supplied by their sources. Why aren't others being singled out for assassination threats?

Assange hasn't personlly hacked into the State Department and stolen those cables. His source (s) supplied him and Assange supplied the Guardian and the NYT.

BTW does anyone else find it interesting that these leaks have been going on for some three years and the US hasn't yet found a way to have Wikileaks charged with anything?

Must be why so many want to go extra judicial and kill him.