Slashdot Mirror
US Prosecutors Have a Sealed Indictment On Assange, Say Leaked Files
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."
I think the only reason he hasn't been Awlaki'd is that he's staying in built-up first-world areas.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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 ?
He's also on Double Secret Probation.
Based on the rest of the Strafor emails, there's quite a high possibility that this is just made up.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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. 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?
My work here is dung.
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
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I don't think of Watergate when I think of these leaks; instead, this is what comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers
We have been in this situation before, only we were less fascist back then.
Palm trees and 8
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."
I am officially gone from
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
I know, godwin. Whatever.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
I am officially gone from
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
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?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy