Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime Government The Media United States

Washington Post: Assange 'Unlikely To Be Prosecuted In US' 236

vikingpower writes "The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials." That "all but" probably wouldn't feel all that comforting if this announcement applied to me.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington Post: Assange 'Unlikely To Be Prosecuted In US'

Comments Filter:
  • Translation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @11:18AM (#45526229)
    So that means he would never appear before a judge. In fact, he might just disappear altogether.
  • Oh that's bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @11:35AM (#45526375) Journal

    But he's guilty of the Worst Crime Possible in the United States: embarrassing politicians. They'll never just let him get away with it.

    The threat of prosecution is at least a small comfort, because it sort of implies they might actually play by some rule book. But if prosecution is off the table, that leaves drone interdiction, indefinite detention, or torture as the only options.

    If I were Mr. Assange, the words "no prosecution" would send a cold shiver down my spine.

  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @05:21PM (#45531373) Homepage

    Nobody has ever or will ever in the history of Sweden been "charged" for anything, for the simple reason that the Swedish judicial system doesn't use English terms. This may sound semantics, but it's actually the key point. There are two terms of relevance in the swedish system: "anklagad" and "åtalad". Look them up in a handful of Swedish dictionaries (there's dozens out there); you'll find that both can be translated "accused, charged, or indicted".

    In a legal process, being anklagad comes first. The prosecutor raises this stage and must have grounds for probable cause. At this point warrants can be issued for the person's arrest. The person also has the right to appeal being anklagad and have a full court hearing reviewing the evidence (and even to appeal that court ruling).

    The only thing that being anklagad doesn't do is lead to a trial. This is what being åtalad does. In fact, once åtalad, you *must* be tried within a fixed period of time. As a standard, there is a questioning immediately before being åtalad.

    So while people can play word games, probably the most analagous terms would be "charged" for anklagad and "indicted" for åtalad.

    Assange has been anklagad but not åtalad. Nor can he be åtalad, because he refuses to hand himself over and he cannot be tried in absentia. So to use "he hasn't been charged!" as a defense of him is simply deceptive.

    And, FYI, here's the sworn-in-court written statement of the Swedish prosecutor:

    Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

    Don't be surprised that Assange pulls stuff like this, the guy is a BS artist about almost everything in his life. Check out the 10 different stories he's told about why his hair is white, for example. My favorite is that it's due to gamma radiation from a nuclear reactor he built as a child.

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Working...