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.
Prosecuted? Maybe not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rot in jail for years before a 'trial'? Oh hell yes we'd do that to him.
Embarassed the powers that be... They got a hardon for him now.
Re: (Score:3)
Step in to my parlour,
Said the Spider to the Fly...
Maher Arar was never "prosecuted". Extraordinary rendition is extra-judicial.
An ordinary deportation to UK - which has no republican constitution and is under Crown Justice - that would have him nicely "dealt".
what would the US have to do? (Score:3)
To communicate the fact that they *really* aren't going to prosecute Assange?
They can't **promise** because US leaders do not know what new information could be revealed. It would be irresponsible and unprofessional for US Attorneys to say otherwise.
They can ***theoretically*** be, you know, actually telling the truth.
What I want to know is, under what conditions would the US be able to communicate this to your satisfaction?
What can the US Attorneys do that wont elicit a "Oh...yeah...SURE...they won't prose
broken record (Score:2)
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?
you want to see Assange, in NYC attending galas, at Harvard lecturing, in DC testifying (freely) before a Senate Judiciary hearing on privacy in the 21st Century...you want that, right? you would have to see it happen?
otherwise, you don't believe a single word the Obama administration says?
Am I accurately representing your posit
Re:broken record (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the OP, but...
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy
An extremely reasonable position to hold, even before Wikileaks/Snowden.
that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?
Grant him complete amnesty, publicly.
'trust' (Score:2)
by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?
what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?
also, and this is important, you **must** be able to give some example of some government that would be trustworthy....otherwise this is just meaningless abstracts...
***is it possible for you to trust any
Re: (Score:3)
Re:broken record (Score:5, Insightful)
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?
you want to see Assange, in NYC attending galas, at Harvard lecturing, in DC testifying (freely) before a Senate Judiciary hearing on privacy in the 21st Century...you want that, right? you would have to see it happen?
otherwise, you don't believe a single word the Obama administration says?
Am I accurately representing your position?
Well I would of added they could burn the Utah datacenter to ash dismantle the NSA prosecute and convict everyone involved in the massive wiretapping of the whole planet repeal the patriot act shut down fica court and bar the judges involved form ever becoming a judge at any level ever again shutdown gitmo and then finally they themselves resign then I might believe them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not. (Score:5, Informative)
Very sad that someone can be granted political asylum and *still* Sweden refuses to do a simple interview. Speaks volumes for the real intent of Sweden [wikipedia.org] (hint: nothing to do with justice, all about locking people away for embarrassing those in power and bringing some long needed transparency into the public realm.)
Re: (Score:3)
I find it hard to believe that a Social Democracy throws people in solitary before formal charges have been brought.... Are you seriously claiming that the Social Nirvana that is Sweden treats defendants worse than the United States?
Well prepare to be shocked by Swedens draconian system then, as it has already happened. We have well documented examples of people being held in solitary FOR MONTHS without any charge. One of the more high profile examples was Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm [wordpress.com], just another who pissed off the powers that be.:
"concern surrounds the Swedish detention facility, where Mr Assange would be held incommunicado upon arrival. Similar treatment can be seen in the case of Gottfrid Svartholm, founder of The Pirat
Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not. (Score:4, Interesting)
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:
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are two women in question here - AA and SW. AA did *not* say she was raped. She has on multiple occasions denied being raped. She *has* said she was the victim of sex crimes. Guess what? There are no rape charges concerning AA. The charges concerning AA are 1x unlawful sexual coersion and 2x molestation. The only rape charge concerns SW.
SW has *never* denied being raped, and *has* said she was raped. Sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trumped up charges? Why thank you, Amazing Kreshkin, for your amazing psychic judicial insights! Never mind that of the three investigating officers, two (Gehlen, Wassgren) wanted him charged for 2x counts of rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, and 2x molestation, while the third (Krans) felt it should be 1x, 1x, 2x; that the initial prosecutor (Finne) started investigating for 2x, 1x, 2x, then changed the investigation to 0x, 1x, 2x; that an appeal to a judicial review board by the women's legal rep (Claes
Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, and I remember when a NY prosecutor said he had a *rock solid* case against Dominique Strauss Kahn, and then suddenly decided that the whole case was bogus exactly three days after Kahn's successor at the IMF was sworn in.
But your naivete is cute.
Re: (Score:2)
Admiral Ackbar gives his opinion on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA [youtube.com]
Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not. (Score:4, Insightful)
If he or Edward Snowden ever land on American soil again, they'll be thrown in jail before the TSA even has a chance to harass them. If they can't get him them on espionage charges, they'll trump up some other charges (probably along the lines of rape, child molestation, puppy abuse, etc. to discredit them to boot), or just not even bother with charges at all and send them straight down to Cuba for indefinite detention.
They've committed the greatest crime of all, embarrassing the U.S. Government. And that carries a mandatory life sentence with no trial.
Re: (Score:2)
These days you don't even need to land...
Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not. (Score:4, Informative)
Question: how can NSA employees travel outside the USA without fear of being arrested for espionage? What did Assange do that the NSA does not do? Spying on the communications of national leaders -- that's not a criminal offense in, for example, Germany?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And for any commenters are
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf [www.nnn.se]
The item they didn't mention, since they are not doing any factual supposition as I do, is that every player in Sweden involved with attempting to extradite Assange is financially involved/linked to the Swedish media mogul family (the Rupert Murdochs of Sweden), the Bonnier family.
Admiral Ackbar disagrees (Score:4, Funny)
[You know what goes here.]
Re:Admiral Ackbar disagrees (Score:4, Funny)
Of course we do!
Mon Mothma: [to Restaurant waiter] I'll have the calamari.
Admiral Ackbar: Well. I guess I'll have the insensitive bitch. With a side of fuck you!
[Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode II (2008) (TV)]
Well I Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess the Washington Post can say whatever they like.
Please accept my personal guarantee that if Julian Assange were to arrive in New York on Christmas Day, he would be immediately arrested and charged with all sorts of obscure charges. He would then rot in a cell for several years(~6) before seeing the inside of a court room.
I guarantee it.
- Not George Zimmerman
Shows Snowden's Mistake (Score:2)
Zimmerman?
Try Snowden.
Why are they saying Assange won't be prosecuted:
If Snowden hadn't been duped by Glenn Greenwald he could have released this info in a way that would let him **be a free man**....because of the US laws for protecting journalists are the strongest in the world.
Freedom of Speech works if you do you homework on how the law is worded.
Snowden coul
Re: (Score:2)
Because word of law has significant impact on supralegal organizations and their actions...
which supralegal? (Score:2)
I don't understand what supralegal organization to which you refer:
is it Wikileaks? the military/industrial complex? "Obama"?
Re: (Score:2)
The organizations that handled the whole "extraordinary rendition" for example. As well as various alphabet-soup agencies that can present complex legal arguments in front of kangaroo courts to explain in great detail why they don't have to care about particular laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He would then rot in a cell for several years(~6) before seeing the inside of a court room.
The Sixth Amendment says otherwise.
The Sixth Amendment doesn't apply to Guantanamo Bay.
Legally it probably does, but who's going to do anything about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just ignore the inconvenient truth that nobody new has been admitted to Gitmo in years, those who are there were all captured on foreign battlefields and received the due process entitled to them under the Geneva conventions, and the titanic P/R disaster that would ensue if any American administration (never mind this administration) were to send him there.
Look at how Bradley (Chelsea) Manning was treated and you will realize that horrific abuses of the judical system appear even outside of Guantanamo Bay with the full support of the US government and in broad daylight for everyone to see. The US goverment willingly accepted the resulting "titanic P/R desaster" and currently goes through another major embarrassment with this Snowden story.
Not all inmates of Guantanamo Bay were enemy combattants, by the way, there were prominent cases of innocent inmates who
can't trust them (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama/DoJ also promised they wouldn't go after Cannabis dispensaries and growers in medical states but that was a lie.
Re:can't trust them (Score:5, Informative)
Of all the current administration's lies, that is the one you pick? How about the promises to protect whistle-blowers?
You now have to go the the Wayback Machine [archive.org] to even find it.
"Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process."
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly my mod points expired...
Re:can't trust them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might also point out that Obama then lied again to try to cover for his first lie. [firedoglake.com] Except he was in office during the more recent lie. With about the same effort of coming up with that lie, he c
i would quote you to prove my point (Score:2)
you do understand that what you quoted supports what I said
if it is legal in the state where you depart from, and you are dumb enough to just have it laying out so they find it, they will consult local law enforcement, who go by the laws of the state, making it legal
the worst that would happen is you'd have it confescated...**maybe** still catch your flight even
your quote proves what I said true!
not that you trust me or anything, but the fact is I know several people who fly with their medicine
except they refer you to **local law enforcement** (Score:2)
you keep quoting it like it will say something different...
if you are ***DUMB ENOUGH*** to leave it laying out, when you **know** by **their own admission** they aren't priortizing it....
**IF** that happens...
they tell you, in the thing you've quoted to me twice now, that they refer you to LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
they don't call the fucking DEA on you for a few joints!
get it in your head...this is like speeding law enforcement...it's not black & white
**everyone speeds when they drive** in some small towns
What about the UK? (Score:5, Informative)
He is still wanted in the UK for skipping bail. Even if the US were not lying he still can't just walk out of the embassy.
Re:What about the UK? (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on what's actually going on. If the whole extradition was orchestrated by the US and the rape charges really are a conspiracy then just because the US wouldn't prosecute him there doesn't mean they're going to drop that avenue.
If it isn't a conspiracy by the US then one of two things can happen:
If Sweden drops the charges then he'll probably get a menial punishment for skipping bail, not likely to be excessive (you can kill someone whilst speeding way over the limit and avoid jail in the UK for crying out loud).
If Sweden doesn't drop the charges then Assange will probably stay in the embassy until Ecuador gets fed up of him, until Sweden starts being reasonable and allows questioning to occur within the embassy (something they can do, despite the lies otherwise, because they've done exactly that in the past), until he gives up and let's Sweden's obscure (in)justice system have it's way with him, or until he dies.
So this whole unlikely to be prosecuted thing may just be weasel words for "We're going to pretend we're nice people that believe in justice because we don't believe he's going anywhere for years anyway and say he's safe from prosecution, but we'll use the qualifier 'unlikely' just in case he does somehow get free so that we can change our mind without having lied". I suppose technically it may be a rather weak attempt by the US government to try and add weight to their pretense that there's no conspiracy against him (assuming there even is) so that Sweden and the UK can pretend he's just paranoid for no reason and that he should come out of the embassy and let them have their way with him.
Either way none of it changes Assange's situation in the slightest so I don't know what the point in the statement is. If the US really wants to change the status quo they need to make a more explicit statement along the lines of "Our inquiry has found that we have absolutely no grounds to prosecute Julian Assange, as he has broken no US law, and therefore we will not be seeking his extradition or prosecution under any circumstances related to the files leaked and published by his organisation to date". It wouldn't mean they wouldn't of course, but at least they'd have to face the consequences politically. The fact they wont issue such an explicit statement and are just putting out meaningless sound bites implies to me that they're just trying to muddy the waters on the issue and trying to win some good will without actually doing anything to deserve it.
Re: (Score:3)
Skipping bail is criminal contempt of court in the UK
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63 [legislation.gov.uk]
Penalties are severe:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/contempt_of_court/ [cps.gov.uk]
An immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to impose upon a person who interferes with the administration of justice, unless the circumstances are wholly exceptional
He would have been (was?) allowed to argue his case that he shouldn't be extradited to Sweden due to the subsequent risk of extradition t
Re: (Score:2)
The site you linked is merely the CPS' information on the issue, that's the Crown Prosecution Service - i.e. the people who advocate primarily for the police, so they're going to overhype the seriousness of laws because they want to deter people from breaking them as it makes their job easier.
But regardless, even the link you posted alone says the maximum penalty for skipping bail is 6 months in jail. That'd likely be applied as a suspended sentence (i.e. no actual jail time) or even just written off altoge
Well, yes he can..... (Score:2)
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf [www.nnn.se]
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much up in the air, and pointedly that kind sexual misconduct that is in question doesn't even exist in laws... well anywhere outside Sweden really. Certainly not in UK. Heck, even in Sweden prosecutor that wasn't buckling for femnazi publicity dropped the case. Than another one who really wanted it picked the case up and started the shitstorm. Or was asked to by special interests, who thoroughly infiltrated Swedish prosecutors office at that point because of all the IP enforcement pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The allegation was never that of rape. It was an allegation of the fact that he did not use a condom.
The fact that she came to the police a week after, and her main piece of evidence... was a USED CONDOM got her all but laughed out until a certain prosecutor, known for her femnazi links decided to get some fame.
You're going to have to give me examples of how this is "third degree rape". Present examples where a man was convicted in a similar case, using that kind of evidence. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that she:
1. Made those claims a week after the case.
2. Brought in a used condom as evidence. That is a WEEK AFTER IT HAPPENED. She saved the condom they used. As evidence. It was so fucked up that the officer taking a statement took a photo copy of the condom. You can't make that stuff up. It reads just as hilariously stupid as it was.
3. The claims were made after this woman "compared notes" with another female activist, to find out that she wasn't the only one shagging with Assange.
My point is
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
We still have it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better than "definite" detention and torture? "Infinite"? :) mind is weird some days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of the "sufficiently large values"...
"You can't hold me for an indefinite time!"
"Fine, we are holding you for 100 years, or until we let you off earlier..."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are still innocent until proven guilty. However, what is done to innocent people these days has changed drastically...
Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly American your Government only pays to have the body created not disposed of, the contractor has the choice on that.. They do like to keep the Job secret and most will dispose of the evidence for free.
I know how they feel (Score:5, Insightful)
That sweet chocolatty cake.
That dark moist delicious cake.
Re: (Score:3)
The cake is a lie!
Om nom nom nom! (Score:2)
Also I am pretty sure Cookie Monster would be a billionaire should he ever decided to sue the Internets on infringement on his copyrighted saying...
No doubt, they are telling the truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like all those people in GITMO. They haven't been charged with any crimes either.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to discuss the propriety of indefinite prisoner detention absent a declared war which, by definition, has no logical endpoint, that's fine. But a blanket comparison is not justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Warring against the US is not protected behavior. Puishing AKA Freedom of the Press, is.
That's not even true for US citizens, let alone for foreigners. Also, many of the people at Gitmo were innocent. Some of them are still there, and the US doesn't know what to do with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the people in Gitmo (Score:2)
Ask the people in Gitmo how their prosecution is proceeding. And while you are at it ask all the people grabbed by Special Rendition about their prosecution status.
The US has demonstrated that there is a huge difference between holding someone and prosecuting them. So while the Justice Department may correctly say that prosecution is unlikely to occur, that in no means ensures that someone won't suffer any consequences.
I'm sure Assange has been waiting for this (Score:2)
I'm sure visiting the US is the only thing He's been able to think about since being holed up in that embassy. Bet he can't wait to experience that fresh Walmart smell and glue his brain to the red ticker on Fox News again. AND, since the US has such a world renown affection for whistleblowers, I'm sure he'd be perfectly safe. He should really take this deal.
Re: (Score:2)
From a legal standpoint, no, the DOJ can't prosecute someone for publishing information. That was covered in the Pentagon Papers cases 40 years ago. But you have to remember the reason he's holed up in an embassy. The government can find an assortment of other bullshit reasons to prosecute you. Any minor discrepancies on your customs forms when you entered the country? Tax problems? Ever pirated an MP3 or movie? If they want to get you, they can and will find a reason. For all the crimes that Al Cap
Riiiiiiight... (Score:2)
"Welcome to my parlor," said the spider to the fly...
Why make him a martyr? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no rape charges, he is wanted for questioning, which already occurred whilst he was still in Sweden at the time the incidents occurred, then given permission to leave.
The questioning could occur at the Ecuador embassy anytime, Sweden chooses not to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
It would also send a good message on "what we do with you fuckers who dare to tell our dirty secrets to the public".
Come into my parlor...... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's bad (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget suicide.
Re:Oh that's bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I mean "suicide"
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, I left that out. Yes, also "suicide" and single vehicle "accident."
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
currently at +4 Interesting, should be +2500 Insighful
Unlikely to be prosecuted, and ... (Score:2)
"unlikely" (Score:2)
In a land of a million laws, we're all criminals. The most any of us can hope for is that prosecution is "unlikely".
Where is he? (Score:2)
What does he do besides Yoga, Play WoW, Drink Wine and read Snowdens leaked docs?
I can see Assange in spaaaace... (Score:2)
Yeah right (Score:2)
So come on for a visit, Julian. We promise we probably, maybe won't arrest you the second your plane lands.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It would take airplane minutes to get to the terminal after landing. That is a lot of seconds!
Unlikely to prosecute, maybe.... (Score:2)
Likely to punish in several other indirect ways? Very much so.
It was ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had an unfortunate mishap during masturbation and hanged himself from his balls on the nearest lamppost. Completely accidental.
Told Ya (Score:3)
I've said this several times on Slashdot (and have the moderation scars to prove it).
Assange will not be prosecuted by the US.
However I would be very surprised if he were ever to be granted a Visa if he applied. Which I really doubt he would ever do.
It also completely destroys the conspiracy theories that the Swedish extradition would be a short stopover on the way to the US. Aside from the EU laws that this would break, the US really has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from this sort of action.
Re: (Score:3)
As bunches have already said here, the real issue is not whether the US prosecutes Assange, but whether the US (or any of its territories or non-annexed lackeys) punishes Assange with (or far more likely without) a Speedy And Public Trial.
Also, given that the US clearly has no respect for privacy or whistleblower protection, that statement by DoJ sounds less like a reassurance and much more like a less-than-implicit threat to other journalists. "What happened to Assange could happen to any of you TrueCrypt
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect the US to do? Kiss and make up? Issue him a Congressional Gold Medal?
Assange certainly has not behaved towards the US is a friendly manner. You are expecting the US to be nice towards him anyway?
Why shouldn't it go after Assange within the framework of the various sanctions and actions legally available to a soveriegn power? The guy is a jerk anyway and everyone knows it.
I fully expect the US to put Assange on its persona non gratia list and tell him to kiss off at every opportunity. And
Re: (Score:2)
I don't regard him as a positive figure. He seems to use people without any ethical concerns. His disregard for the people named in the documents he got from Manning was reckless, and his comments about that issue revealing. I really don't think he cares about anyone except himself. Why else would he court Ecuador and Hezbollah?
Former associates like Heather Brooke have had very harsh criticism of him. It's something to keep in mind.
'All but' (Score:2)
Three Biggest Lies (Score:2)
The cheque is in the mail
Of course I'm on the pill
We won't prosecute Assange
Two objections (Score:2)
1. As far as I know, the DoJ hasn't brought legal proceedings against any of the people detained at Guantanamo.
2. The President has publicly claimed (and regularly exercises) the right to order anyone, anywhere, to be killed any time he chooses. Just because he deems it fit.
So I wouldn't put too much store in anything the DoJ says. Because, you know, they don't have the final say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correction:
It's all but not a trap.