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."
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Nope [wikipedia.org].
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:I still don't get it (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: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: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: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:5, Informative)
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.
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: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.