US Prosecutors Have a Sealed Indictment On Assange, Say Leaked Files 328
beaverdownunder writes with news from The Age that "Leaked e-mails from private U.S. intelligence agency Stratfor indicate that American prosecutors have had a sealed, secret indictment drawn up against Julian Assange as early as January, 2011." From the article: "The news that U.S. prosecutors drew up a secret indictment against Mr. Assange more than 12 months ago comes as the WikiLeaks founder awaits a British Supreme Court decision on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned in relation to sexual assault allegations.
Mr. Assange, who has not been charged with any offence in Sweden, fears extradition to Stockholm will open the way for his extradition to the U.S. on possible espionage or conspiracy charges over WikiLeaks' publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked classified U.S. reports."
Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the only reason he hasn't been Awlaki'd is that he's staying in built-up first-world areas.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would he be easier to extradite from Sweden than Great Britain?
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
This page has a lot of arguments and info on the topic, mind you the source isn't terribly neutral:
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
He wouldn't be easier to extradite from Sweden than Great Britain. The EU has specific rules and regulations regarding extradition to a third-party non-EU state, and there is absolutely nothing (legal) that Sweden can do to extradite Assange to the US without first getting the consent of the UK's justice minister.
The only way that Assange could be extradited to the US is:
1) Sweden and the UK BOTH agree to honor an extradition request, through their justice ministers & courts, and that extradition is held up by the EU central courts;
2) Sweden decides to jeopardize its standing and decades of goodwill in the EU, as well as facing probable legal and economic sanctions, and hands over Assange without obeying the relevant EU laws to which it is a signatory
In case 1, why would the US wait for him to be extradited to Sweden, instead of just requesting extradition from the UK? They have to get the UK justice minister's approval either way, why add Sweden's system to the mix?
In case 2, this is so unlikely to happen that you might as well be worrying about a Martian invasion, as well.
The only people who think the Sweden extradition is some sort of grand conspiracy for the US to get its hands on Assange are... well, Assange, and a like-minded bunch of credulous simpletons (see the link provided by GameboyRMH for examples of like-minded simpletons.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Informative)
"The EU has specific rules and regulations regarding extradition to a third-party non-EU state"
Actually they don't. They only have rules and regulations for extradition between members. This is why current extradition treaties between the U.S. and European countries are still very, very valid.
And apparently Stratfor... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only people who think the Sweden extradition is some sort of grand conspiracy for the US to get its hands on Assange are... well, Assange, and a like-minded bunch of credulous simpletons
Nice ad homenim against anyone who disagrees with your view. Extra points for arrogance.
Apparently your list of "simpletons" includes your buddies at Stratfor, who claim to have specific intelligence indicating that the charges in Sweden are trumped up:
Ref: http://www.webpronews.com/stratfor-email-leaks-reveal-u-s-plans-to-indict-wikileaks-founder-2012-02 [webpronews.com]
This may be less about extraditing Assange to the US, and more about jailing him for any offense, real or imagined, and assinating his character. Which would still be a "grand conspiracy" of sorts, just not one focused on extradition: label him a rapist and jail him for trumped up charges without us breaking any of our laws. Makes a nice example (in the Mafiosa Dom sense of the word), particularly once you throw Manning's inevitable sentence into the mix.
The sealed indictment (if real) adds another sinister bent to the whole thing. Regardless, that a very nasty game is afoot here is not in doubt, what is, is exactly what the nature of the game is.
What role a secret indictment would play is interesting to speculate about (and that's all anyone can really do). Can Assange be rendered more easily from Sweden (or points en route), or is he more vulnerable to extradition as a convicted felon and ex-con after he's served jailtime on trumped up charges and his reputation is in tatters? Or is it just an Ace the government keeps up its sleave, on the off chance Assange someday has a layover on US soil, say, on his way to a speaking engagement in Rio?
Re:And apparently Stratfor... (Score:5, Informative)
None of the laws you cite are valid, because: Assange was not under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time. He can't commit treason against the U.S. in the same way that you can't commit treason against China. As far as I know there is no international law covering postal services - this is covered by cross-boder treaties like the 1874 Treaty of Bern, not the legal system. International law covers things like war and genocide, it does not cover privacy of communications. Revealing the identity of intelligence officers isn't an international law crime either, otherwise all those Americans who mirrored the MI6 agent list [cryptome.org] would have been prosecuted.
If the actions of Assange were a crime in the country that he was resident in at the time, then it is their responsibility to prosecure him, under their own laws. At the time of the release, legal commenters said that it would be very difficult to prosecute, because the leaks were in turn published by the New York Times: in effect, any action against Assange would also have to be an action against the NYT, which would bring up First Amendment issues. I also recall reading at the time that no U.S. newspaper has ever been prosecuted for publishing leaked information.
also, he's not a US citizen (Score:3)
if the US executes it's own citizens, it's a moral conundrum that challenges the primacy of our constitutional system.
if the US executes an Australian citizen, it's an international incident that may cause war-crimes charges to be brought against President Obama.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True, I'm sure he could be killed with a handshake if the US had zero respect for the UK's sovereignty.
I still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Might makes right.
Re: (Score:2)
And winners write history.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
it is impossible to invent theories to indict them [Assange/Wikileaks] without simultaneously criminalizing much of investigative journalism
The emperor reacts violently when without clothes.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminalizing investigative journalism is exactly what they intend to do.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. Manning did aid the enemy. Anyone who cares about freedom of information, exposing war crimes, and holding the powerful responsible for their atrocities is now an enemy of the United States. If that's treason, thank god for treason.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
That's awful shortsighted.
Manning worked for the US military and eventually made it his purpose to subvert it. He entered the military voluntarily - the US does not have a draft and Manning was not part of a social class that had no options. He abused his position, broke his oath, and acted to place materials whose secrecy he was supposed to protect... into the hands of enemies (and friends, frenemies, neutrals, and basically anyone who cared to look). Frankly, he deserves what he gets.
There is a larger debate that should be had about how much of that information really should be secret, and if so from who, and then for how long. Even if we assume that Manning was doing 'the right thing by [caring] about freedom of information, exposing war crimes, and holding the powerful responsible for their atrocities , his acts are those of a vigilante. Thus, his methods subvert his cause.
If he did what he did and blindly uploaded to wikileaks... well then that's the end of it. He's a naive fool who thought his cause of the week was worth the risk. Maybe he still feels that way?
If, OTOH, he asked wikileaks for help... if JA helped him decide what to steal; how to steal it; how to cover his thefts, etc... if JA persuaded Manning to do as he did... well then he may well have participated in a crime (conspiracy; accessory; theft of data; unauthorized access) at a US military installation. Why would we want to support this?
Investigative journalism is worthy of our protection. We need to ask and obtain answers to difficult questions. The "press" (at least in the US) really does have the right to ask the questions and to publish the answers. Determining what to ask, who to ask, and what to publish is the critical role of the 'investigative journalist'. So long as the journalist is simply asking questions and getting answers, they deserve our protection.
If the "journalist" stops asking questions and starts directing... [for lack of a better term, literally] agents to steal that data, we DO need to reassess their role. I'm not sure if JA crossed that line, but it seems reasonable that we should ask. Who watches the watchers, etc...
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would we want to support it? Because fuck them. They have been stealing our money for years now, and mortgaging the country down the drain all to support a few overly wealthy people's financial interests and personal pipe dreams.
The moment he sent those files was the first REAL service he did for the american people, when he became a whistle blower and started sending out their secrets so we could see what they have been doing behind our backs while they steal our resources to do it.
Bradley Manning is a true American Hero. One of the very very few amongst a legion of slaves who do little more than what they are told while they pat themselves on the back for guarding freedom.
I hope they give him the Nobel Peace Prize, he is far more deserving than that war monger Obama.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if we assume that Manning was doing 'the right thing by [caring] about freedom of information, exposing war crimes, and holding the powerful responsible for their atrocities , his acts are those of a vigilante. Thus, his methods subvert his cause.
This right here is plain nonsense. Sometimes it's necessary to break the law to improve justice. When the law protects evil, working within the law is evil.
If, OTOH, he asked wikileaks for help... if JA helped him decide what to steal; how to steal it; how to cover his thefts, etc... if JA persuaded Manning to do as he did... well then he may well have participated in a crime (conspiracy; accessory; theft of data; unauthorized access) at a US military installation. Why would we want to support this?
Because the good outweighs the bad. Nobody can point to a single wrongful death caused by the Wikileaks dump. We can point to many wrongful deaths inappropriately covered up by the military.
Now it's not Bradley Manning's job to decide whether the good outweighs the bad. And it's not Julian Assange's either. But whoever's job it is, they have failed badly. We should be thanking Manning and Assange for bringing that to our attention.
In short, vigilantism is a symptom of a broken justice system. If you don't like vigilantism, you should be working to implement the kind of oversight that would make whistle blowers obsolete.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason working societies mostly make acting within the law the only accepted determination of "good" and "evil" are that these things can be relative.
Only if you define "working" as purely authoritarian. Many of our greatest leaders, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. have been law breakers. Allowing the law to replace your personal conscience is to utterly fail as a citizen. The law exists to serve us, not the other way around.
Ok, which? Laws against killing? Should an anti-abortion a
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
He abused his position, broke his oath
There is also a case that could be made that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law [huffingtonpost.com] (to which the US is subject), to expose the crimes he saw.
There is a larger debate that should be had about how much of that information really should be secret, and if so from who, and then for how long.
I think this question is already answered that most, if not all, of the information leaked by Manning should not have been secret. From what I've seen the information falls into basically two categories, either it's innocuous, or it reveals immoral and often criminal behaviour. Neither of these should have been kept secret.
Even if we assume that Manning was doing 'the right thing by [caring] about freedom of information, exposing war crimes, and holding the powerful responsible for their atrocities , his acts are those of a vigilante. Thus, his methods subvert his cause.
Calling him a vigilante is quite a stretch since he didn't really punish anyone other than exposing what they were doing.
If he did what he did and blindly uploaded to wikileaks... well then that's the end of it. He's a naive fool who thought his cause of the week was worth the risk. Maybe he still feels that way?
I would hope that preventing war crimes and exposing government wrongdoing is more than just his "cause of the week". Maybe you believe the things he exposed were just not that serious? In my opinion killing civilians should be taken very seriously, and it should be punished appropriately instead of covered up.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's treason, thank god for treason.
"Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - Sir John Harrington (1561–1612).
And that's why they are out to get him, and why he knows it. If Assange and the sordid revelations he assisted can survive in the teeth of official U.S. outrage, then that kind of revelation becomes legitimate. It's not just the U.S. which rails against that, since several of their allies and opponents appear to be cheering them on in the process.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4)
"but he is an enemy of the US, and a coward."
Posted by Anonymous Coward. Interesting. However, I do agree with the first part of his post. Manning committed treason. The rest of the post is nonsense, IMO.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The cowardly enemies of the US are the people who are abusing the system of secrecy to cover up crimes and embarrassing behavior. Exposing those coverups and those crimes when you know full well that you might be murdered for the act is heroic and very much in the spirit of ideals of democracy and justice that America is supposed to uphold. I am an American Patriot, and I support wikileaks. The first step in purging the corruption that has infected this great nation is to expose it and make the people aware.
Re: (Score:3)
Espionage is and always has been, IIRC, a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Espionage is and always has been, IIRC, a crime.
What espionage, exactly? You mean (allegedly) receiving (alleged) stolen goods from (the alleged) Bradley Manning, just like The Guardian and The New York Times did? The NYT and its publisher/editors don't even need to be extradited.
How much is the USA, the UK, and Sweden spending on this witch hunt?
What happened to the last spy cell the US caught? Shipped back to Russia to become hosts of their own TV show?
Why's the US got such a stiffie for Assange? Because he helped prove that Hillary really is the i
Re: (Score:3)
The emperor reacts violently when without clothes.
now there's an image...
So be it...Jedi. *yanks off robe*
Re: (Score:2)
So the question is what kind of justice mokery they came up with ?
That would be American justice mockery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I hack and break into MI5 or Downing Street, does that mean that my extradition to the UK mean that "British laws apply everywhere in the world" too? Or does it mean that we have an extradition agreement with the UK?
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
And what, exactly, did Julian Assange hack, or break into?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and people keep forgetting that that's exactly what investigative journalists do, so if you want to prosecute him for that, you've just killed freedom of the press.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 [wikipedia.org]
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but he didn't even break any laws period. He could have been in the United States and it would have been perfectly legal for him to release that information. It's not illegal to release classified information; it's illegal to share it if you were given access to it legitimately. If someone accidentally leaves it on the bus, you can do whatever you like with it. The government can't force citizens to keep secrets for it, it can only punish those who don't keep secrets after swearing that they would.
Where Does It Claim to Be Under US Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the question is what kind of justice mokery they came up with ?
I suppose that the Wikileaks cable leaks were so pervasive that some of the files contained classified information -- maybe even information not only classified by the United States government but also many other governments of the world.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the US prosecutors have researched the laws that he was supposed to be abiding by when he obtained the files? They're probably not as serious as the US laws but nowhere does it say whether these are charges under US law, Australian laws, US-Ally law or some other foreign law. Here's some reading on said laws from the nation of his citizenship [nationalsecurity.gov.au]. Perhaps the purpose of this indictment is to try to get him tried under those laws in an Australian court with information provided by US prosecutors?
Re:Where Does It Claim to Be Under US Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it would need to be the appropriate law enforcement from THAT country that would have an indictment.
It would be REALLY odd (nay, not within the law) for the US Department of Justice to be holding a sealed indictment for crimes under Australian law or any other country's laws. Ironic huh? That the US Justice Department would be involved in an extra-judicial, not-within-the-law process?!? Not really I guess, but "For Great Justice" - erm, lets lynch the SOB. Trust us, the president says he's an eeeeevil
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think the rule of law applies in America?
Re: (Score:2)
You demonstrated Assange's complete innocence in four sentences! Somehow, I think that it is a little more complicated than that.
I'll wait to see the indictment.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck waiting. The Obama administration, like that of Bush before, sees no need to present indictments or use public fair trials prior to detention, and Obama has extended that policy to execution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How is that different from the Pentagon papers?
And is Bradley Manning really all that different from Mark Felt [wikipedia.org]?
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
He did not steal the files! He is not an american citizen! And when he did obtain the files, he was not on American soil! And he is not bound by any law prohibiting the distribution of these files, and certainly not under any NDA. So the question is what kind of justice mokery they came up with ?
Ask the MegaUpload people how not being american worked for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the evidence of interaction between Assange and Manning that the government has said it has, presumably the basis of any charges would be Manning's offenses, Assange's interaction with Manning, and 18 USC Sec. 2:
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that issue is as clear as you do. There's little stopping Congress from passing a law granting themselves some sort of worldwide jurisdiction (assuming the law would be otherwise valid). The better question is whether any of the rest of the world would care. If they refuse to extradite, the point is moot.
In this particular case, I see little reason not to extradite. His actions would be illegal pretty much everywhere, which is one major factor to the extradition process. Prosecutors could simply assure they will not seek the death penalty (assuming it's even possible; it depends what he would be charged under) to defuse another. Though it's debatable on a philosophical level, the vast majority of these nations also recognize our legal system as fair and capable of a fair trial, defusing another. If the US really does have a sealed indictment, it's already declared that he has, in fact, engaged in behavior that can be reasonably construed as breaking US law insofar as being deserving of bringing him to trial. I see no reason for other nations to second guess that declaration as a matter of policy, which means they would be making exceptions for Assange and quite frankly opening themselves up to problems in the future in terms of equal protection within their jurisdictions.
How did they get the indictment? I don't know. We haven't seen it, obviously, assuming it even exists. We don't know what it's for, so it's hard to even speculate. I've seen some interesting theories with regard to the Espionage Act. Quoting a law professor's interpretation of the act, it "prohibits the willful communication, delivery, or transmission to 'any person not entitled to receive it' of '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.'" That certainly seems to apply, at least superficially enough to bring to trial. Assange's propensity for running his mouth and making comments about how he hopes to bring governments down makes it awfully hard to backtrack on his intent as well. You can probably manage jurisdiction pretty easily since the information was originally hosted on, and thus disseminated from, Amazon servers -- Amazon being an American company and the servers likely, at least in part, on American soil. And that's just one way. (The whole article is interesting if you want to read it [msn.com]. You can see each parties' biases shine through, but they all bring up a lot of good points that would be raised at trial.)
I'm not making any judgments about the case itself, by the way. I'm simply saying that whether or not he should be brought to trial or should be extradited is not nearly so simple an issue. In fact he probably should be; I think the burdens on that end have been met. The better questions are whether he should be prosecuted and if he is, if he should be convicted.
If it goes to trial, there are a ton of huge issues. First Amendment protections; the definition of journalists; the requirement of intent; application of not only the law but First Amendment protection itself to foreign nationals (on foreign soil); the very definitions of espionage themselves. I think he has a lot of damn good defenses -- probably more than enough to generate reasonable doubt. I simply believe they should be adjudicated in the United States if you United States makes those allegations. The other burdens to extradition are met in my mind.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Any arab would say that burning a Quran should be illegal pretty much everywhere.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it does (Score:3)
You don't get to get out of the law just because you are somewhere else. For example suppose I get your bank account password and steal all your money, but I do it from a different country. Not a crime where I am, even though the act probably is it wasn't done in their jurisdiction so not a crime there. Doesn't matter, your country can still extradite me to face justice (provided our nations have extradition treaties, which most do). I can't hide behind a border. Same deal if I ordered someone in your count
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
He did not steal the files! He is not an american citizen! And when he did obtain the files, he was not on American soil! And he is not bound by any law prohibiting the distribution of these files, and certainly not under any NDA.
Do you get it now?
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the situation you described fits the parent post exactly. Said Russian spy would not and should not be extraditable to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The term is 'espionage' - e.g., 'spying.'
Whether or not what he's done meets the definition of spying would depend largely on whether he actively solicited these files (e.g., encouraged the leaker, allegedly PFC Manning, to breach security and release the classified information to him), or whether he was the passive recipient, and all of the responsibility for the release of classified information rests with the leaker. If you actively seek out classified information with the intent of passing it on to people who aren't cleared to possess it, that would be considered spying. If you are given information by a leaker, there are still some espionage concerns if you decide to publish, but the US Supreme Court has taken a fairly narrow view of what sort of things the government can forcibly prevent a newspaper from publishing once it has been leaked.
Your argument, however, is nonsensical. Being a US citizen doesn't mean you're allowed to go to Germany and break their laws, and then claim as a defense, "But I'm not German, and I don't live here - I'm not bound by German law!" If you commit a crime in Germany, you can bet that the German authorities will want to prosecute, regardless of what your nationality is.
NB: I'm not arguing that Mr. Assange *has* committed a crime against the US, I'm pointing out that your argument does nothing to exonerate him if he actually has done so. I could certainly agree that his organization handled the leaked documents irresponsibly (a much more thorough redaction to protect named informants would have been preferable), but I'd need to see far more concrete evidence that he actively solicited this information to believe he engaged in anything like espionage.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument, however, is nonsensical. Being a US citizen doesn't mean you're allowed to go to Germany and break their laws
I bolded the relevant point. Extraditing Assange to the US for breaking US law is like extraditing one of use to Germany for Holocaust denial. You don't have to like the act or the actor to understand that such an extradition would be unjust.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument fails. To continue your German theme, if you are in the USA and you buy some Nazi memorabilia, you have probably committed a crime in Germany but you have not committed any crime in the USA. You are not a criminal for buying the items, even if you subsequently go to Germany, because when you bought them you were not subject to German law. Even if you bought the items from a German you are free and clear (although the German guy may not be).
A person cannot be expected to know the law in all 200 or so countries and abide by them all. Much as many USA folks seem to believe otherwise, US law is not enforceable worldwide.
Re: (Score:3)
Using your example, the French citizen who allegedly solicited to have somebody assasinated likely broke the law in France as well. If this is the case then even though they are well in their rights to extradite the Frenchman to the US, because he has committed a crime in France as well then he can be tried and punished under the French system.
This is where extradition treaties come into play. France likely will prefer to try the person in France because he is in fact a French citizen.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Nope [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal in the US...
See original comment as to why US law does not apply to him.
Re: (Score:3)
Making the files accessible is illegal
Under the laws of which country?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't even matter. It's not illegal in the US. Look at the Pentagon Papers case. The Supreme Court ruled that the gov't can't criminalize publication of said files by a 3rd party. They can only criminalize the improper disclosure of the files to non-authorized persons, which is why Bradley Manning is in custody.
That fact, of course, doesn't stop the US Gov from trying to extradite the guy and try him just to make his life hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, the EU countries have extradition agreement with the US but they can't extrade someone who could risk death penalty. Assange case is really a legal minefield.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Give him a journalism award (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers [wikipedia.org]
We have been in this situation before, only we were less fascist back then.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
UK has a requirement not to extradite in cases where a death penalty is a possibility and also where the crime is considered to be political in nature, since you have had US senators calling for the death penalty, even if they are just sounding off for the cameras, both of those restrictions may have been met. However, the political restriction may not apply because the definition of a political crime is criticism of their own government.
An attempt to extradite from the UK may not be as easy either legally or politically as it seems on paper.
And that's not all (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to avoid the US government.
Re: (Score:3)
Who needs facts? Innuendo is so much more fun. (Score:2)
Great, Stratfor claims to have a "secret indictment."
Well, where's the indictment? Leak that document.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who needs facts? Innuendo is so much more fun. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks. Having that email is interesting, but it is entirely devoid of any context or what the actual document is. Stratfor's an intelligence company. It could be misdirection for all we know.
Conspiracy minded thinking just doesn't jive me. It's pretty obvious the US Government isn't happy with Julian Assange, but, at what point does the conspiracy end? Show me the damn document.
Re: (Score:2)
"Stratfor claims to have a "secret indictment.""
I doubt Stratfor has a secret indictment.
From the wording it looks like Burton is using "we" to refer to the US government/country. Burton had heard that there was a secret indictment from some source.
I don't know if it's true, but would anyone really be surprised if it was?
So far, these amazingly revealing internal Stratfor emails have been a damp squib. If these are the selected "smoking guns" we're in for a replay of Geraldo Rivera and Capone's Vault.
They
And in other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sure hope Obama doesn't get re-elected. I hated GWB's policies when Bush performed them, and I hate them just as much when Obama performs them.
No evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the rest of the Strafor emails, there's quite a high possibility that this is just made up.
Assange (Score:3)
Follow the rules... (Score:3)
Admit nothing, deny everything and make up counter accusations.
Now we know where the US Government gets its ideas to make crap up.
How about the tax payers telling government where it is going to spend tax payers taxes? The system is already there for tax collectors and processors to direct each tax payers tax revenue to where each tax payers instructs. This will solve a great deal of problems with an out of control rouge government.
As a tax payer I do not approve of my taxes being spent by the government funding lies and deceptions that hurt innocent people.
Who are the tax payers who do? Can I get a list?
According to the Declaration of Independence it is the tax payers right and DUTY to put of government not serving the interest of the people and to form a new governance that will. And that is in the works - i.e. http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/ [nycga.net]
For those who do not know, you can support Wikileaks, using your credit card or paypal by simply buying sponsor items (see wikileaks site for donations) such as a T-Shirt for $100 where the profits go to funding Wikileaks. And this is called Free Enterprise.....
Re:Follow the rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Replacing one set of loons with another, even loonier set is not an improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Maybe by using the term 'rouge government' he was implying that the government has been taken over by Communists?
Re:Follow the rules... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are the tax payers who do? Can I get a list?
Well, the sad thing is that when US citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed with a missile without the slightest pretense of judicial due process, most polls suggested that about 65% of Americans approved, including substantial majorities of self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans. So by all appearances, US citizens don't actually care about whether the government follows its own rules.
This is obviously a scary fact, but something many totalitarian rulers discovered a long time ago is that the masses are generally fine with government oppression so long as they keep them distracted (with TV, iPhones, etc), target minorities that are small enough that they can't fight back (e.g. Japanese-Americans or German Jews), or create a subset of the population that thinks of themselves as privileged (members of the political party, following an established religion, dominant racial group, etc) and will fight to defend that privilege. Hence this comment from the 1930's: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
Re:Follow the rules... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp [snopes.com]
I know, godwin. Whatever.
Re:Follow the rules... (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that there was a targeted killing of an American is extremely chilling, but, while we're not at war, what Al-Awlaki did was a matter of insurrection and treason under Article 3, Section 3.
Seriously.
The constitutional definition of treason continues to state: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." That never happened in the Al-Awlaki case. Ergo, what happened to him was not a legal execution for the crime of treason. It also wasn't the legal killing of a criminal suspect resisting arrest (because there was no arrest warrant, he had no way to surrender himself to a missile, and there was no attempt to apprehend him).
And lest you think that what happened to Al-Awlaki was ok because the judicial system didn't apply, you're wrong again. Article 3 Section 2 spells it out quite clearly: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;" And of course the Fifth Amendment also makes it very clear that Al-Awlaki was entitled to a trial: ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
The legal way to handle a case like this:
1. Prosecutors present the evidence against him to a grand jury.
2. Grand jury gives out an indictment, and a warrant for his arrest is issued.
3. US State Department talks to the Yemeni government (which the US has good relations with), requesting extradition of Al-Awlaki for trial for his crimes.
4. Yemeni army / police, possibly in cooperation with US forces, attempts to apprehend him. If he resists, they can respond with appropriate force.
5. He is tried for his crimes. Evidence is presented, his attorney has a chance to rebut the evidence, etc etc. If he is found guilty (by a jury, of course), he is locked up for the rest of his life and possibly executed.
What part of this couldn't have happened with Al-Awlaki? And incidentally, the argument that the warrant would have tipped him off also makes no sense, given that there was a case pending in which Al-Awlaki's father sued in federal court for an injunction that his son be tried before he was executed.
Here's what actually happened, according to the Obama administration:
1. Intelligence officials presented a case for killing Al-Awlaki to the Obama appointees.
2. The Obama press office gives out a bunch of information to the public about how Al-Awlaki is a Bad Person.
3. Obama orders a missile strike on Al-Awlaki.
Notice that Al-Awlaki never has a chance to confront or refute the evidence against him, and the only story the public has is the story the Obama administration wanted them to have.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a lot of good intel saying that he was pretty proud of doing these things.
Says who? All the actual evidence of that is classified.
Not only that but I'd be willing to bet heavily that if we had done this legally it would've ended with a giant firefight and he'd have been dead anyway with out "due process" and everyone would be up in arms anyway.
He would have had due process if we'd indicted him and then issued a warrant for his arrest, and he'd resisted arrest. There'd be no legal problem whatsoever, and a lot of people who are up in arms about this would have been fine with it. The key difference here is that if things were done legally, Al-Awlaki would have the option of *not* resisting arrest and standing trial, where he'd have a chance to confront and refute the evidence against him.
You'r
Why secret? (Score:2)
My understanding of such matters is that indictments are kept secret so that the subject doesn't go into hiding or otherwise take steps to avoid arrest. Do you really think Assange isn't aware of the US' desire to get him? Through the court system, extraordinary rendition, or just a sniper.
The fact that he is being indicted should be somewhat of a comfort in that the intent is to give him his day in court rather than in someone's crosshairs.
I need new glasses (Score:2)
When I glanced at that headline I actually parsed it as
"US persecutors have a sealed indictment .."
Well maybe that's more truthful ;-)
American Government is the Greater Threat (Score:4, Insightful)
When the American government pulls moves like this, it proves it is the greatest threat to liberty in the world. The bland malevolence of the sociopathic gangsters running the United States right now puts the acute and minor threat of 3rd world terrorists shooting guns to shame. The latter kills scores, the former kills millions. And the former's threat is all the more intractable because of all the sheeple who shut up and do as they're told in the commission of the crimes.
duh (Score:3)
Now what do they really think will happen if they would sentence Manning and Assange?
Would their (USA) secrets be more safe due to this?
Nope. Plenty of people that can and will leak.
So it all depends on their (USA) security policy.
Not the theatre stuff we see from DHS, TSA in all types of places but the security policy in IT and on diplomatic levels.
So the USA lost to wikileaks and is pursueing something that will gain them nothing. Not even their honour.
I dunno... (Score:2)
Hmmm. That is BS. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While I believe that Manning should be tried and executed ...
I am deeply saddened by that, but each to their own. I'd say he should be tried, and during that trial all the leaked documents should be examined and if it was in the public good that they be leaked (eg cover up of the gunning down of civilians) then they should count in the "plus" column. Ultimately, I think his bravery quite possibly warrants a medal. To stand up and be counted, to be the David to the US Goliath, to fight for Truth, Justice & The American Way!
If my government had been hiding evide
Assange must have leaked the sealed indictment (Score:4, Interesting)
"Stratfor intelligence analysts on January 26 last year, the company's vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks. He wrote: "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."
So Burton, a Stratfor VP, as "a sealed indictment"? Money & influence aside, on one at Stratfor has the power to directly indict anyone. If Burton is telling the truth, it means that someone committed a crime... by leaking a sealed indictment.
So here we have a prosecution team going after Assange for leaking classified information. In the course of doing so, someone on their team has leaked sealed information. Was it some ideological troublemaker, hell-bent on making secret government information public? Sounds like Assange!
Whoever it was, should really go after that person was. You know, for leaking sealed information. Which they seem to believe is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Some jackass leaked the key to that in a book last year, it affords him no safety now.
Re: (Score:2)
And before anyone says "LOL IRONY" the reason that key becoming available was bad is because files inside there were completely unredacted.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a error about the leaked KEY.... Fact is it's not to the whole Insurance file. That key has yet to be published
Re:insurance.aes256 (Score:5, Informative)
No, the insurance key was not leaked by the guardian, it was a different key.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/09/unredacted_us_d.html [schneier.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you had been following the details of the leaked KEY you'd know its not the KEY to the "Insurance.aes256" file but a mush smaller subset encrypted file.
Further more if you understood technology about .torrent files its the file your torrent software (i.e.http://www.bittorrent.com/downloads ) uses to set up and participate in receiving and sharing the files the .torrent file is relevant to.
The insurance.aes256 is not a .torrent file but rather the very large file you want.