I got “08sweden748” sent to me and told it explained the Swedish bail problem. I went and found the cable and read it, did not understand most of it. Paragraph 6 made some kind of sense to me as far as visa waivers being wanted. Being OLO I couldn’t post the whole cable.

Reading your post Forest it might have been the wrong paragraph. But that is the reason I put it here, hoping someone would explain it.

So this is Sweden wanting more official information from the US and the US saying they don’t need one and aren’t likely to get attacked then they do get attacked?

This makes Sweden willing to do anything to get together with the US for terrorist info?

Jewely,

A relatively quick perusal of the cable indicated to me that it seemed to be primarily concerned with Sweden continuing an "informal" data-sharing arrangement with the U.S. It's informal because a formal agreement would require presentation before the Swedish Parliament and, therefore, parliamentary and public scrutiny.
In the cable it said,:
"Meetings between the HSPD-6 terrorist screening information negotiation team and the Swedish MOJ and MFA reveal that the current Swedish political climate makes any formal screening information agreement highly difficult. Existing informal agreements are working well, according to Swedish official..."
And more: "The MOJ team expressed appreciation for the flexibility of the U.S in regards to moralising the agreement. they expressed a strong degree of satisfaction with current informal information sharing arrangements with the U.S."

It appears to suggest that the current "informal" arrangement is a way for Sweden and the U.S. to share intelligence data outside of the Swedish Government's scrutiny, regulation or restriction.

Correction - "moralising" should read "memorialising".

Continued

Thank you, Jewely, for answering my question as to who made the excerpt from the cable. You ask:

"So this is Sweden wanting more official
information from the US and the US saying
they don’t need one and aren’t likely to
get attacked then they do get attacked?"

Full marks for your desire to learn how this cable may shed light upon Assange's being sought by the Swedish courts, but you really must learn to slow down to a pace at which you can do your own thinking, and avoid conflating things. So where to begin?

"So this is Sweden wanting more official
information from the US ..."?

No. More likely it is about the US wanting an agreement with Sweden, among other things with respect to extradition of the like of the one the US has with the UK, whereby if the US asks for a Swedish citizen, or a citizen of any other country lawfully held in Sweden, to be extradited to the US, it gets that person no questions asked, no detail of charges, no rights, no hearing, no appeal. There may be being implied that the continuity of existing visa waiver rights for non-terrorist Swedes travelling to the US could be dependent upon reaching whatever sort of agreement a US Homeland Security Presidential Directive Agreement may be.

"... and the US saying they don’t need one ..."?

No. More likely that without a HSPD-6 style agreement being concluded the Terrorist Screening Database will remain a 'one-way street' in favour of US interests knowing all about Swedes, but Sweden not knowing what the US knows about Sweden's own citizens.

"and [the US saying Swedes] aren’t likely to
get attacked .... ?"

No. The Swedish government expressing the view to the US that it does not see a need to conclude a HSPD-6 style agreement because public opinion in Sweden would likely be against it AND the risk of terrorist attack is, in Swedish opinion, low.

"then they do get attacked?"

Bingo! And by a Swedish citizen doubtless on the TSDB!

Coincidence?

Johny Rotten Goodonya mate, love an honest man.
Now nothing should be ruled out.
Thanks Forrest for your insightful posts.
America has already in the past done worse than set up an idiot to kill himself.
I rule nothing out or in but remember this America has worms.

The AFP has not found any breaches of Australian law by Wikileaks.

Also, "Defence Minister, Stephen smith says that a Defence taskforce has found that cables about Iraq did not damage the national security interest."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/17/3096032.htm