Slashdot Mirror
An Anonymous US Law Enforcement Officer Claims US Wouldn't Arrest Julian Assange
McGruber writes "The Washington Post reports that 'Federal prosecutors have not filed a sealed indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, despite persistent rumors that a nearly three-year grand jury investigation into him and his organization had secretly led to charges, according to senior law enforcement sources. ... "Nothing has occurred so far," said one law enforcement official with knowledge of the case. "If Assange came to the U.S. today, he would not be arrested. But I can't predict what's going to happen. He might be in six months." The law enforcement official providing this assurance chose to remain anonymous.'"
The headline is a pretty strained summary of his quote.
We believe you.
Lets see if I still believe this after drinking two beers.
youtu.be/ACgJhE2L7Ms?t=44s
Nope
Bull Fucking Shit.
Sounds like a tactic to let the Justice Department be able to say, "He is not facing arrest" without lying.
Plus they problaby have to soften up the journalist community, to get them OK with the idea that Assange is a spy and not a publisher/journalist.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Come on home Julian..... you can trust us.....
They might not arrest him. They might just shoot him.
I am officially gone from
You can't believe a damn thing anyone in law enforcement says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Never could, no point in starting any time soon.
Makes good family viewing. Especially your kids.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The official went on to say that he totally heard that the Justice department has a big basket of puppies waiting in the office to give to Julian [Assange] if he just drops by by next week.
You typically don't arrest people after they jump off the curb in front of a bus while being mauled by a pack of attack dogs with polonium teeth. Especially if they previously committed suicide using the safe two-bullet-in-the-head technique and padlocked themselves in a gym bag.
It's just poor taste
He wouldn't be arrested, they don't have to do that in America anymore - they "detain" you.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Sure.
he'd be arrested.. tomorrow. :-p
If the indictment would be secret, would we know about it? Would the unnamed official know about it? If he or she did, would it be completely "truthful" according to secrecy doctrine to say it had not been filed when it had, in fact, been filed, because it was secret and officially, not only did it not exist in a filed state (or in any state), but he has no knowledge of whether it exists one way or the other?
... I heard that Julian Assange has accepted an invitation to speak publicly in New York City's, Central Park on November 30, 2013 at 6:00 PM. I also heard that large numbers of people were going to show up dressed as Julian Assange. Is there any truth to that rumor?
The only thing they could arrest him on was bribing the guy, er, girl. I was pissed off at Assange, too, but we've been down this road before with the Pentagon Papers, and rightly so.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I wonder if the lack of an indictment or any sworn statement that he will be arrested is some kind of bargaining status diplomatically. Maybe not a very good one, since it doesn't seem likely that the US would NOT try to persecute, I mean, prosecute him if they could.
But perhaps by not indicting him or "officially" promising to arrest him, Ecuador will somehow feel pressure to boot him out of their embassy or at least not feel as interested in letting him stay.
I have some beach front property in West Virgina to sell you. Ocean front view and moonshine...
There may not be an formal charge to arrest him right *now* but that could change in a blink of an eye should they find him strolling the streets here in the US of A. But at this point, who cares? He's sitting in some embassy on foreign soil and apart from an act of war there is nothing the USA can do but sit and wait. At least legally that's all they can do. Of course, if he was anyplace but the middle of London, you might have already seen a quick drone strike. I'm sure the CIA has his number and would pull the trigger if he wasn't sitting in an embassy in the middle of a close allie's capital city.
This "unidentified" law enforcement official is either uninformed, stupid, deluded or all three. You KNOW they'd snatch him up if given the chance, if nothing else to "hand him over to the swedes to answer questions". Extraordinary rendition is what would happen, no documentation, one way, no return trips to anywhere.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The NSA will accidentally have a sniper pop his head off and claim it was urban crime...
Assange is charged with rape in Sweden. I know his supporters love to claim that the charges are fake, but it's not like the Swedish Justice system is widely considered to be corrupt. Hell, they have statements from Swedish women saying he did it. I could believe the CIA faked a video of Assange. But faking people is just not technically possible. Believing the CIA found two (not one, but two) women Assange'd take to his bed, and that both would agree to charge him with rape afterwards, and that neither one of them snitched to the media? That I have trouble with. Especially since to find two you'd have to interview dozens, somebody would probably figure out what was going on, and then she'd have every reason to snitch to the media.
Assange could walk around the US for exactly as long as it took the Swedes to file an extradition request. Since Accused rapist Assange is more useful to the US then freedom fighter convicted on trumped-up charges (and charges would not be a sure thing, given that he didn't do anything inside the US and he isn't a citizen) he would be turned over to the Swedes before US charges could be filed.
In the unlikely event that Mr Assange gets himself out of the Ecuadoran embassy and to the United States without being arrested by UK police, and the US border authorities did not immediately detain him, and US did not indict him on some charge of their own, then he would still be arrested shortly afterward. The Swedish authorities would have started extradition proceedings with the US the moment they got wind of Assange leaving the UK.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
'Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to the Fly.
..cause I have been jonesing hard for some Wendy's!
J.A.
The Land of the Free does not arrest people. It invites them to a holiday island to play a game of heretics and inquisitors.
So the source used wikileaks to remain anonymous? heh
Obama simply refuses to admit on the record Assange or Snowden has been arrested. Refuse to say anything to the press but "No comment" about it.
Like the US Gov't has handled questions about Israel's nuclear weapon arsenal for 4 decades.
but it's not like the Swedish Justice system is widely considered to be corrupt. Hell, they have statements from Swedish women saying he did it
I'm not an Assange supporter, but:
The ladies both consented to engage in adult activities. They decided afterwards that Assange allegedly did not agree to their terms and conditions, so they filed charges. It's kind of like a dad borrowing his car to his son saying "you can't go faster than 65mph" and then filing theft charges if he finds out that the kid drove 80mph on the freeway. The Swedish systems allows for this, so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Let me just be the first to say...
Bull-motherfucking-shit.
If Assange came to the U.S. today, he would not be arrested. But I can't predict what's going to happen.
If he went to the US today - something we know practically won't happen - he supposedly wouldn't be arrested. Anytime after this he may well be arrested. So for all practical purposes, he may still be arrested.
And one of the girls had connections with the CIA anyway. Also, Assange is not actually charged with anything. They just want to "question" him but refuse to question him in London but wanted to take him back to Sweden. Also, the Swedish prosecutors didn't go after him, and later did go after him, with the suggestion that they changed their mind after a word in their ears from the U.S. He has good reason to be paranoid.
Breaking news, here on /.
Federal officials have anonymously granted immunity to all who confess here (No Anonymous Cowards!) to drunken driving, porn viewing, shoplifting, debauchery, and hacking.
Dudes, for real, turn yourselves in. Totally cool. Totally. Listen... C'mon. It's cool.
Gently reply
the u.s. government also has free health care and retirement plan for everyone.
As I recall, one of the ladies had consensual sex while insisting that Assange use a condom, and then woke up later that night to find Assange having sex with her without a condom. She had not consented to unprotected sex, which means it was unconsensual (i.e. rape). That is NOT "deciding afterwards that Assange allegedly did not agree to their terms and conditions".
The Swedish systems allows for this, so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.
Why does that matter? He broke Swedish law while in Sweden. Who gives a shit what the US laws on the topic say?
The cake is a lie.
No, that's not rape. Maybe Sweden defines it that way (I don't know) but everywhere else that wouldn't meet the definition of rape, which usually has to involve coercion or threat of violence, which this did not. So yes, while Swedish law gets the last word here, you can't go around singlehandedly re-defining rape just because one jurisdiction has a very puritanical view of "rape".
so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.
And your point would be... what?
That would imply some human rights would need to be honored. I imagine he would be indefinitely detained.
...everything is just fine. On another note aliens walk among us.
Believe me it's true.
The US government has a history of telling lies. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They never existed. Iraq soldiers taking babies out of incubators and letting them die. Never happened. Prisioners not being tortured in Guantanamo bay. Yeah right. And this is now to be believed?
In New York State his alleged action would be Rape in the 3rd Degree:
S 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent.
1. Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim.
2. Lack of consent results from:
(a) Forcible compulsion; or
(b) Incapacity to consent; or
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching, any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor's conduct; or
(d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.25, or criminal sexual act in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time of the act of intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct, the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have understood such person's words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances.
S 130.25 Rape in the third degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:
1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;
2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or
3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person`s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Julian, is that you? A rape is a rape. Non-consensual sex. There is no such thing as "rape", except for rapists. Doesn't matter if there was consensual sex before. This is clear for everybody.
It's an anonymous source who's obviously speaking only for himself.
Just another excuse for the Slashdot daily quota of Snowden/Assange/Swartz/NSA stories. What happened to the technology site that used to be here? Yeah I know, that was back in 2002 or something.
This is just deniable misinformation. Unless somebody with some authority says it on the record and with their reputation on the line this is worthless.
"You're that clever shark, aren't you?"
"Just a dolphin mam..."
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
Sounds more like an anonymous coward.
I mean, except for fulfilling some child dream of going to Disneyland...
Sounds like a tactic to let the Justice Department be able to say, "He is not facing arrest" without lying.
Plus they problaby have to soften up the journalist community, to get them OK with the idea that Assange is a spy and not a publisher/journalist.
I bet you it'd take about 2 hours or less for them to serve up a warrant... in face, id wager there's one prepared, unsigned, just waiting for the chance for a 'friendly' judge to sign if the situation calls for it
The law enforcement official providing this assurance chose to remain anonymous.
The guy saying this is quite literally a nobody. He's merely making a conjecture off the top of his head. There's no story here - If I were to say "Assange would be shot down in cold blood as soon as he set foot on American soil," would that be a newsworthy story? Not really. Neither of us has any more idea than the other what would happen. This guy's some random twit, the source reporting it is just publishing filler, and Slashdot proves their irrelevance by even linking such a pointless bit of non-story.
Nothing to see here.
As I recall, one of the ladies had consensual sex while insisting that Assange use a condom, and then woke up later that night to find Assange having sex with her without a condom.
And I heard it that he had consensual sex without a condom on assurances that he was monogamous, and when it was discovered he wasn't, the consent was retroactively withdrawn. If lying to gain consent is rape, I think 90% or more of the population has committed rape (yes baby, I love you).
Learn to love Alaska
Sexual assault is what the charge "really" is, but that's vague enough that "rape" is used instead.
Learn to love Alaska
Does the US still bother with arresting people? Or would he just be thrown into a hole? It's so hard to keep track...
Why would he be arrested? He did something that the U.S. government really wished he hadn't done but he is not a U.S. citizen. He was under no legal obligation to not publish any of the documents Bradley Manning passed to him (or anything else). The Brits have different secrecy laws and THEY can arrest him for publishing anything that they regard as secret (Official Secrets Act or something like that) or on the Sweedish rape charge. The U.S. is under no obligation to arrest him in that matter although we cooperate with various European countries (e.g., bilateral extradition treaties) so we might.
So other than all of the people who have watched too many spy movies, how would he be arrested, subject to rendition, disappeared, etc? Other than the terrorists that we deal rather harshly with under the term "illegal combatant", can anyone give me a documented example of a private citizen of another coutry who got shipped to Gitmo? Especially, a high profile private citizen like Mr Assange? The U.S. government may not like him but he would be subject to due process under the law.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
And your point would be... what?
My point is that, contrary to popular belief, US laws do not apply everywhere in the world. So whatever the law defines as rape in your flyover state, can have a whole different meaning in another country.
Let me give another example: most states consider consensual intercourse between an adult and a sixteen year old "statutory rape". In many countries around the world, it is legal or just a "lower" criminal offense which usually does not carry a long prison sentence.
Morals differ everywhere and are codified as such in law. Look at the differences in age of consent. One does not have to agree with this, but before you travel it is wise to understand. Sex on the beach in Dubai has landed people in prison as well.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Rape by deception is still rape.
But who am I kidding? This is the internet, a cesspool of misogynistic assholes. I bet you think that having sex with someone blackout drunk isn't rape either.
He is "alleged" to have done this. Nothing has been proven. He is wanted for interviewing. Given that they have pursued this unlike any similar cases, this one is being treated as special. That is enough to tell you that it is not a normal case. What he has been "alleged" to do would have millions upon millions of Americans (and swedes) in jail. You break the law every day, we all do. This gives them the choice to prosecute you... or not.
What he did was a dick thing but they have come down on him with a tonne of bricks. So do it equally to all... or to none.
They were women not girls. Girls are nice and also young. In the USA empire it is illegal for men to have anything to do with girls. In the old testament it is fine. USA is against God. The USA is a woman's police state/empire.
Shutup feminist.
Way to go, anonymous coward with mod points.
New York Times Co. v. United States
That's the authoritative case and it still stands today. Look it up before acting in such haste with the downmod.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Then they'll arrest him.
If I were forced to choose either to believe in Santa Claus or this "anonymous" officer of justice of the United States of America, I rather believe in that fat guy in red clothing - and his leading reindeer with a bright shining nose
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Stand behind what you say, like this poster!
The problem with the recent enemies of the US is that they are _not_ considered journalists, namely "Assange" Even the guardian writers and staff are concerned about trying to enter the US, because people like Feinstein have claimed that unless you are vetted by the US Government you are not considered a journalist. I'm sure this would take a trial to make stick (if it did) but not too many journalists want to volunteer to be the first in the defendant seat if they can help it.
The case law you linked would work if a writer from NYT refused to reveal a source and wrote about something classified, maybe. Writers are the targets of investigation and threatened (at a minimum) if they write about the wrong things. These are very messed up times to be a journalist.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Rape by deception? Is that what Cinderella did to Prince Charming?
Rape by deception is still rape.
But who am I kidding? This is the internet, a cesspool of misogynistic assholes. I bet you think that having sex with someone blackout drunk isn't rape either.
I'm honestly confused here, Rape by Deception? What exactly is that?
"Yes baby I'm famous"?
"I love you"?
"I'll call in the morning"?
Stereotypes about lying to get into a chicks pants aside, what the hell are you trying to imply? If somebody agrees to have sex at the time, but in hindsight wishes they didn't its not magically rape, its called Regret. Sometimes accompanied by a Hangover.
I'm honestly trying to imagine any scenario that could justify the phrase Rape by Deception and the best I can do is getting one of those fancy masks and voice changers from Mission Impossible to make somebody think you are someone else.
Why does that matter? He broke Swedish law while in Sweden. Who gives a shit what the US laws on the topic say?
The US does actually. Extradition law in the US applies if you want to extradite somebody out of the US.
Most countries won't extradite for an action they don't consider a crime, so if the law differed enough they might refuse.
Extradition treaties could vary from country to country too, just to make the issue even more complex.
And of course, like any other legal decision your extradition may be appealed, which would of course be covered by the law of the country you are in.
Of course he's got a side to the story. This is why many people prefer going to Court to holing up in a friendly Embassy.
But a) there're two charges, so even if one is frivolous he's an asshole, and b) it would be very hard for the US to arrange for Assange to scorn a lover so petty she accused him of rape.
Swedish Law is not a clone of British law. Which means terms we're familiar with (such as "charged") don't always apply in the same way they do in the States, Canada, or the UK.
In this case their prosecutors have confirmed they aren't just after him for questioning, they want to charge him. I don't know why they haven't. It's possible you can't formally do that in Court in Sweden until the accused is in custody or something; but it's close enough to "charged" that wikipedia uses that phrase.
What happened was Assange convinced both to have sex. One claimed he intimidated her into doing the deed. The second insisted he agree to her terms and conditions (ie: condom), and later on she woke and he was fucking her without a condom.
Both would be rape in the US, but it would be very difficult to get a conviction in either case because they're he-said/she-saids and US Juries have a very expansive view of reasonable doubt in sexual assault cases.
And what was the connection? There are only 9 million people in Sweden. There's a CIA guy at the Embassy. 90% of the country is probably within three or four degrees of separation from the CIA, politically active people are probably much closer because Sweden has a fairly low population/politician ratio and the CIA's job is to talk to politicians.
As for charges, keep in mind Sweden does not have a version of the British legal system. The words we use in English don't necessarily fit what's happening very closely. In this case the Public Prosecutor has said they want to prosecute, but they can't actually charge him until he's in Sweden.
It's pretty impressive that after years of thinking up explanations all Assange can come up with is "one of these chicks I allegedly raped is exactly like most of the rest of the country," and "I can't be charged until I leave the Ecuadorian Embassy, therefore I;m staying in the Embassy."
Goddammit I was wrong about Wikipedia using the phrase "charged with rape." This is what I get for reading the google summary, rather then the actual article.
What's actually going on is under Swedish law he can't be charged until he's questioned again, and that will only happen in Sweden. Which makes the "not charged" argument a bit circular. People reading it will assume that he's not been charged because he's got a good case and might not go to trial, when the fact is he hasn;t been charged because he's figured out a way to flee the accusations that has worked so far.
But a) there're two charges, so even if one is frivolous he's an asshole, and b) it would be very hard for the US to arrange for Assange to scorn a lover so petty she accused him of rape.
a) Perhaps he used the same line on both women, and they found out about it, and both filed for the same thing at the same time in a single inter-related situation
b) how hard is it to pay someone $100,000? People in the US have falsely accused others of worse for less.
Learn to love Alaska
And Assange chose to engage in adult activities under Swedish law.
Are you serious? Many US politicians have called in not-so-many-words (and perhaps literally in some cases) for his assassination! The US is renowned for its policy on "extra-judicial-killing", known to the rest of us as the henious crime called murder. It is also well known for kidnapping, torture and detention without charge or trial. Not exactly the America I grew up to love when I were a lad! Hmmm, let me think. Shoud Assange trust the US government or not. Ohhhh, it's a real tough one.
Law enforcement is allowed to lie when they interrogate you, they are allowed to lie to safely arrest you. Nuff said.
a) If you have any evidence that he used the line on either one feel free to present it. So far all we've got is that you remember he claims he used it once.
b) The problem with bribing people is there's no guarantee they stay bribed. In this case if either woman had a mysterious $100k deposited into her bank account she could easily turn that into a lot more simply by writing a tell-all book about the experience. More importantly there's no guarantee a woman the CIA offers to bribe this way says yes, so if the CIA actually tried this strategy there'd be a couple hyper-ethical girls running around in Sweden who knew that a) the CIA offered them money to accuse Assange of rape, and b) that somebody mysteriously accused Assange of rape. That book gets you on the Daily Show.
In other words the fact that nobody has cashed in on this story is pretty god evidence the CIA isn't mysteriously manipulating the situation.
I'll agree it's possible Assange's innocent. I'll agree that he almost certainly wouldn't be convicted in US Court, because he-said/she-said means Reasonable Doubt to every jury ever. But if the US could actually arrange this kind of thing it would have happened to a lot of people not named Julian Assange.
a) guilty until proven innocent. Got it.
b) when the CIA bribes you, you stay bribed, or they kill you, kill your mother, and rape your car.
Learn to love Alaska
You break the law every day, we all do.
Do you rape people every day?
The ONLY difrference between OBL and you are that he is brown skinned.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
Oh, dear.
didn't know your own constitution?
For a start: she says herself she was half asleep. And on waking fully joined in.
This is not rape.
Secondly, the condom was supposed to have broken, "she felt it". Really? But the condom she brought as proof showed deliberate tampering, had no Assange DNA on it and had never been used in coitus.
Thirdly neither woman asked for a charge of rape, both refused to change their claims to support that and both withdrew the claims and support when they were told it was going to be a rape charge.
NOT EVEN THE WOMEN THEMSELVES CALL IT RAPE.
I grew up in 1960's Australia, if you were at a Saturday matinee and didn't stand up for "God Save the Queen" at the start of the show then the nearest random adult would lift you to your feet by your ear and sing directly at you until you joined in. Then the Queen went out of fashion in the 80's so we changed the anthem with a referendum. For some reason we picked a tune nobody knew, and nobody will now admit to voting for. Schools still play the official anthem but most adults simply lost interest in national anthems after that, we just sort of pick our own nowadays, Great Southern Land is my personal favourite, and of course anyone not living under a rock will recognise You fella come waltjim Bat Matilda as uniquely Australian.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The Constitution designates the party holding the power to declare war. It doesn't contain a magic formula or incantation for doing so.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They won't file an arrest warrant because they have no plans to charge him with a crime and trial him. Someone, somewhere, made the distinction Assange is an enemy of the state and a terrorist and as such he will be executed on sight.
That's the whole beauty of the war on terror. Without clearly targeting an enemy state, you can pretty much call anyone who does anything you don't like a terrorist.
Where the US and its behavior is concerned, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Things like legal procedure are details which are used to distract the
gullible.
If that is not yet obvious to you, you have not been paying attention.
Before you get upset with me personally, I must add that I do not believe
this is morally or ethically defensible, but in purely practical and pragmatic
terms you are nonetheless best off to understand that this really IS
how the US operates, and unless there is a drastic change in the governance of the
US which is unlikely to happen via the process of elections, it is how
the US will continue to operate.
I thought Nixon and Viet Nam was the worst I would ever see during my lifetime
as a US citizen. How I wish this were true. For all those who are not US citizens,
I assure you that many in the US are aware of how wrong the US government and its
policies are, but our opinions have no influence and we are powerless to change the
situation.
Lastly, if anyone believes there will be a change when Obama leaves office, you are /.
in for a disappointment. Things might change for the worse but regardless of who is
elected president things are not going to get any better. So stock up on vodka,
comrades, you're going to need it.
We won't come after you! DUH!!!
He also had specific instructions to be buried within 24h of his death, so the aforementioned gym bag was also thrown into the sea. He died of natural causes to be sure.
One out of 632,000 unnamed officers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm) says he won't arrest Julian Assange, leaving only 631,999 left to independently decide if they will choose to do it. Now what are the odds of that happening? Funny, my calculator must be broke, is says (631,999 / 632,000) = 1.0 Hmmm, maybe a slide rule will do better...
I suggest you do some homework. There are many people in Gitmo still to this day who are innocent; a few reporters I can think of, one is still in there, I heard about him months ago. As for high profile, in the USA the media is inept at best - we barely get coverage on Assange and only probably because of the attention he gets from the internet. In other countries they made other victims get a higher profile (especially if it's one of their innocent victims-- Canada even payed for damages to one of their own for their complacency, it got coverage there.) Another issue is the other innocents are not extremely political and controversial; they are much more innocent and were/are not actively political, like most normal people are.
Due process in the USA is broken, if you have not noticed. It's much more hit or miss. Assange is clearly a flight risk, he'd be in jail from day 1 until his trial YEARS later and be prevented from doing his day job-- which is keeping his tiny organization going and funding the lawyers. The case will be bogus if they can't invent something to stick because they want to make an example out of him; they have the power to mess you up good without breaking any laws. Today they can bend the laws or break them without much trouble; it's unlikely you end up vindicated let alone having them punished for their actual legal infractions after a decade of court time.
You must have noticed the politicians and government lawyers mentioning severe terms and references to ancient laws that don't reasonably apply... but technically could apply if you have the warped reasoning of a lawyer or politician. They've been doing it on many other fronts in the name of security... You did hear them justifying the NSA stuff, no?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Assasination?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Feinstein is a Senator, i.e., a Legislator, she doesn't get to interpret the law (a job for Local, State, and Federal Judges) nor decide who gets charged for breaking it (a job for Local, State, and Federal prosecutors). She does get a hand in writing the law, alongside 534 other Federal Legislators and countless State and Local ones.
I'll concur with you that it's a hard time to be a journalist in the United States, when contrasted to years past, but I'd still rather be a journalist here than almost anywhere else. The United States does not have a State Secrets Act like the United Kingdom. The only people who can be held to account for leaking classified information are those with security clearances who voluntarily accepted the obligation to keep that information under wraps. The rest of us (journalist and non-journalist alike) have no legal obligation to do so. If a CIA Officer knocks on your door tomorrow and hands you a hard drive full of classified information there's nothing in the legal system stopping you from sharing it with the world. You could be compelled to testify against him at his trial, and you might be compelled to turn over the actual hard drive as evidence, but you could not be punished for having looked at or shared the information that was given to you.
In any case, I don't really understand Assange's logic here. He professes to be afraid of extradition to the United States, but he was content to stay in a country with a much closer relationship to the United States than Sweden has, only seeking refuge when he exhausted the legal appeals that were keeping him out of Sweden. It's enough to make me wonder if the Swedish accusations have merit, particularly when you consider his personality (described as arrogant even by his colleagues and supporters) and the fact that many of us with 'Y' chromosomes tend not to think with our brains when it comes to matters in the bedroom. The people who support him should pause and think about the seriousness of those allegations, what he's accused of doing would be a crime in most jurisdictions (this isn't some charge that's unique to Swedish law), and even if you don't think it rises to the level of a criminal offense it's a damn shitty thing to do to someone.
He'd be doing himself and his movement a favor if he'd face the heat and clear this matter up, one way or the other.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
After that, someone forgot to tell our political leaders that you don't secure a city street corner with a tank, it is the wrong tool for the job.
I don't think anyone "forgot" to tell. Note that General Shineki in the above link was set to retire in six months when he gave the relevant testimony (in 2003) to a congressional hearing. That wasn't a warning from a loose cannon, but a warning given by the member of the DoD leadership with the least to lose.
I think you being particular about the named persons job function is intentionally trying to skew the point I made. The point was that numerous political figures that do have influence with enforcement agencies will pressure agencies into actions (right or wrong is not the point).
Next, claiming that the US is not as bad as "those guys" does not take away how frightening of a time it is to be a journalist in the US. It does not mean that Journalists are not being prosecuted without hesitation and having their first amendment rights revoked at the same rate as US citizens are (or perhaps faster). Your example is best case scenario today, yet we could also look at other worse cases and use those as the "normal". Neither would be correct, because the normal sits in a bit of a flux between those two sets of potential examples.
Personally, what you seem to overlook in your last statement is that it's not _you_ putting yourself on the hook but you putting someone else on the hook. As mentioned, Assange is not the only journalists that is not testing the US waters (Greenwald). Sure "They should fight and go to jail for what they believe in" sounds fine, but would you do the same? Hell, start conversing with Assange and see if you could make yourself a martyr because I'm sure there is more news to try and break.
Look, legally I believe in very much everything you stated. The issue is that the Government is not following the laws currently, and nobody from the Government has gone to jail for denying people their rights, not one. If that starts to happen I'll be more apt to argue on the side of the laws of the land.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The difference between Greenwald and Assange is the former isn't hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy, playing the victim card, because of charges that are entirely unrelated to the issue we're talking about. Frankly I think Assange is bad spokesman for journalism, given his character flaws and vendetta against the United States, but that's neither here nor there.
It does not mean that Journalists are not being prosecuted without hesitation
Name one journalist that has been criminally charged -- never mind convicted -- in the United States for the publication of classified material. Just one. I'll be waiting....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
A Google search will be much more efficient at doing this. Barret Brown is one that came to mind immediately, but others have been forced to testify. against sources. Interestingly Brown didn't even post classified material, he simply linked to this material already on the web.
Your statement regarding the location of each person does not make either willing to trust the US judicial system. Neither will your straw man, nor your personal opinion of a person. Claiming your straw man argument is "neither here nor there" does not change the placing of a straw man. You will need some better rhetoric than that.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You're "happy he is dead" ??? Why should you be happy? Taking a life, even if it is responsible for taking other lives, is never a joyous occasion. If it is to be done, it should be the most solemn affair. I don't think we should execute anyone, no matter how evil, for murder is murder, or else you are just a hypocrite.
I am not a religious person. I do not believe in a god created in our own image. I place my faith in science, for it is the only practice that takes it on faith that the true answers can be found. But I do have reverence for the things the supposed Jesus Christ said to us, as humanity. You know, the red letters in the Bible.
One of those was not to kill each other.
Obama has destroyed our "Hope" and continued the perpetual tumble forward into the darkness of inequality and the opposite of liberty.
Just need to say this too: To those who think it is OK to forgo the 4th amendment in these times, the "if you're not doing anything wrong then why are you worried" crowd: The founding fathers deliberated long and hard in a time when it did matter. They were trying to protect you from yourself, and to protect our fledgling institution from the two things that can kill it dead: inequality and oppression. For the only way our democracy can survive is with equality and liberty. We and our immediate ancestors have, due no thanks to ourselves, lived in maybe the most liberated and equal (but not perfect) time on the face of history. So, perhaps, I can see why you are not bothered. Because you are ignorant to oppression and inequality.
Anyway, when you say "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about," you are in diametric opposition to the founding members and drafters of the constitution.
Don't say that any more. Please, instead, come up with a better explanation as to why we can do with less equality, liberty, and democracy.
The girl was zero degrees separation or perhaps one degree separation. That is very different from three or four degrees, which is essentially meaningless.
Assange has to use probabilities. There is a high possibility that if he goes to Sweden he will be transferred to the U.S. Everyone recognises this. Nice of you to suggest he takes the risk but will you bet your house on it? since you believe it is 100%. I am sure you would not.
So Assange slept with a woman who has "zero or perhaps one" degree of separation from the CIA? On a scale of 1-10 how stupid is that? And I'm taking you at your word that she's that close to the CIA, because you haven't presented any proof. More importantly he's been charged with two rapes. If one victim is lying but the other isn't he's still a rapist.
I didn't say I blamed him for staying in the Embassy. He is really good at pissing people off, and if he went to Sweden he could easily become a convicted rapist. And he has to allow for the possibility that we'll screw up and arrest him ourselves.
I doubt we'll do it. He's perfectly neutralized at the moment.
BTW, this is actually the major reason I doubt the CIA had anything to do with what happened to him in Sweden. Nobody's that good.
a) I'm not the government. I have a Constitutional right to ignore "innocent until proven guilty." I pre-decide criminal cases all the time. I thought OJ did back when I was 12. I thought Zimmerman did it. I thought Casey Anthony should be convicted, until the Jury convinced me the Prosecution hadn't presented it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think she did it. I despised the Steubenville rapists before they were charged. Why would I be nicer to Assange then any of those other people?
b) Really?
How are the CIA gonna do that in Sweden? It's not like the Swedish cops won't notice that the woman responsible for ending Assange's career dies at 27. It's not like Greenwald has been prevented from publishing his stuff. Hell, why couldn't our theoretical bribee tell her handler she was gonna spend her bribe money in Rio? Then she gets to publish whatever she wants.
Yeah she'd be stuck there forever if the US can actually kill pretty Swedish girls in the Swedish streets, but she'd be fucking rich and she'd be in fucking Rio.
You do know how they pursued Manning, i assume. so why are you surprised they pursued Assange? Everything they said publicly was that Assange was considered a major threat. By having him arrested or locked in an embassy they have achieved much the same result. Someone pressurised the Swedish to pursue him. Assange was allowed to leave the country when the issue was raised. The swedes could have detained him. They didn't. So why would you not be surprised that this pressure came from the U.S.?
The "rape", and i put it in quotes as it might be legally a rape and even morally a rape but the original sex was consensual and even afterwards the girls did not have a problem. One of them even hosted a dinner for him. Only after they found out about the other girl did it become a problem. So in the context of day to day crime enforcement this one is so minor that it would never come to court or even be pursued. It has been alleged but it is a "she said, he said" situation. Very difficult to determine if it DID happen. You assume it did. It may not have.
And assange pisses off the U.S. military, but what a surprise. They weren't pissed off when he revealed others secrets, just when he revealed theirs. The fact that they were doing ILLEGAL activities means that he should be seen as a whistleblower. So have the people in the military doing the illegal activities been jailed? Was not their crime many times the seriousness of Assange's? They killed people, Assange killed no one. But instead we just try to shoot the messenger.
Same with Snowden. If the NSA does its evil stuff but we all know about it then we can decide if we want them to do it. But everyone is upset that Snowden revealed it. Do you think we don't deserve to know this is going on? If someone has a webcam in your bathroom would you be happy with it as long as you didnt know?
Just like the boiled frog analogy except we are the frog and lighting the gas.
a simple google can find the connection with the CIA... such as
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
If you believe what politicians are 'saying' instead of finding out what they're really 'doing', you're living in a world devoid from reality.
Casteism
If it helps, what he is accused of was also found to be rape under English law, and may well be rape under other laws, so it isn't necessarily the case that Swedish laws are different, or particularly unusual.
The accusation of rape (translated into English for the High Court) reads as follows:
To me that seems to have the key issues of sex and a lack of consent, that tend to be the corner-stone of definitions of rape. Whether or not there was consent (or the events actually happened) is obviously a question for trial.
I'm not an expert on Swedish criminal procedure, but the willingness of the "injured parties" to "file charges" is usually irrelevant in criminal justice systems. The state brings the charges, the "injured parties" may be witnesses, if needed.
You really do not understand the US military at all if you think there was ever any question of Chelsea Manning getting locked up forever. It's a hierarchical organization. Manning disobeyed general orders not to leak classified information. He disobeyed his oath to follow all Constitutional laws. And he did it by giving everything to an organization that the US Military considers to be Anti-American. You can criticize the military for it's decision to crucify Manning, and I will agree with you on that point to a (fairly limited) extent. But any fair-minded person has to allow that any hierarchical organization with it's own court system is gonna crush the dude who ratted it out.
My problems with Snowden (and, to a lesser extent, Manning) are not that they revealed classified information per se. It's that they revealed so much of it. Why is it a scandal that Australia spies on the only country in it's region it would have a logical reason to spy on? Why is it a good thing for Mugabe to find out exactly which Generals in his Army could be converted to his Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai? I really don't like that they both violated their oaths to the US Government. But what I truly can't forgive, is that they have no clue how to influence the government.
Take these leaks. The whole timeline was predictable. Everybody freaked out for two weeks, then something else happened and the news media went "ooh! shiny!" and now Feinstein's bill is considered a "solution" to NSA-snooping despite the fact it places approximately zero restrictions on NSA snooping. That's exactly what happens when you release information to the American people through the media. They freak out, the news coverage is saturation, then (because the world is fucking everything) some other shit happens and the people/media start freaking out about that.
If Snowden had sent his packet to Wyden's office Wyden would have been able to control the debate, and had a shot at reforming the system. He didn't, so control defaulted to the higher-ranking Feinstein, and Snowden basically destroyed his life for nothing. Along the way he gave up numerous surveillance tactics the US is probably trying to use on countries he probably disapproves of more then the US.
BTW, your CIA link to Assange's accuser is not very convincing. It's an indirect connection to a group that has ties to a group which is CIA-involved, but not black-ops-CIA-involved. Given that all Assange's supporters are interested in international politics, and the US has it's fingers in pretty much every political conflict in the world, it would be more surprising if neither accuser was involved with a group involved with a group that has worked with the CIA then the other way around.
I completely understand why Manning would be jailed,and he probably does too. But why has the New York Times suffered the same fate as Assange is likely to face if he leaves the embassy. Because they can touch him but not the NYT.
If Snowden had sent his data to Wyden then it would not have been revealed. The scandals around Australia and the U.S. spying etc is not an excuse for saying that it should not have been revealed to the world. We need to know that the NSA and others are spying on us and how they are doing it.
The CIA link with one of the Assange girls is a bit tenuous but then again the CIA is not publishing its lists of spies so it could be something bigger. Wikilinks had another internal contact who was working with authorities. The point is that the Swedish reaction is suspicious and Assange is right not to trust them. Yes, he probably did a dick thing but he is not going to get equal treatment under the law and that is a justification for avoiding Sweden.
I completely understand why Manning would be jailed,and he probably does too. But why has the New York Times suffered the same fate as Assange is likely to face if he leaves the embassy. Because they can touch him but not the NYT.
Mostly because the Courts haven't ruled leaks sits have the same protections boring old journalists get.
This actually isn't a gimme for either side. The Courts gave journalists an out because the Constitution can't work without journalists getting scoops, and journalists had proven themselves responsible enough to be trusted with the ability to get said scoops.
The first bit could easily apply to Wikileaks. Their problem is the second bit, because they went crazy and dumped a bunch of un-redacted diplomatic cables into the wild regardless of whether the country needed to know the info there. I think I already mentioned that two Zimbabwean Generals who'd spoken to the US Embassy got in huge trouble. The American people had no need to know the general's names, those generals had a fairly reasonable expectation that their conversations would remain private, and as a result a) the Generals were charged with treason, which allowed b) Mugabe to keep a significant amount of control over his armed forces.
More importantly the Federal Judiciary today is a lot more national Security-Friendly today then it was back in the days of the Pentagon Papers.
If Snowden had sent his data to Wyden then it would not have been revealed.
Maybe. Maybe not. It would depend on the tactics Wyden chose to use.
Going public in a big press release probably wouldn't be his first thing, because then it would be a public battle of him vs. Obama (he loses most Democrats), and him vs. the national Security Establishment (he loses most Republicans). He gets no traction in Congress, and nothing changes. Which is pretty much what we got.
But he could propose bills, and actually tell government-skeptical Tea Party Republicans why they should vote for crazy-ass-liberal-Wyden's bill. If the NSA director flat-out lied to him he could publicly refute the lie.
Politics is all about timing. If Wyden/Amash/etc. had been able to prepare for these leaks and had bills ready when the story broke we might actually have solved the problem. If they'd had time to convince their colleagues this was serious, and not just a bunch of internet-Fanboi-techno-nerd whining because their pretty computers got watched the problem may have been solved. But they didn't, so the thing that always happens happened: the media freaked out, some loser moderate who opposes change because moderates suck created a meaningless bill, everyone got distracted, and nothing will change.
This is the worst of all worlds. You know to be paranoid about what the NSA did, but you have absolutely no clue what the NSA is doing now because nobody is gonna leak that shit. And since the law is just gonna change to make it easier for the NSA to do the next evil thing you really should be incredibly fucking paranoid right now.
The scandals around Australia and the U.S. spying etc is not an excuse for saying that it should not have been revealed to the world. We need to know that the NSA and others are spying on us and how they are doing it.
We don't need to know jack-squat. What we need is it to stop.
Let me put it to you this way:
Would you rather have your internet surveilled, and know about it; or not have your internet surveilled and not know it had ever been surveilled?
we can't stop surveillance from every country in the world so knowing about it is the best we can hope for. In that respect Snowden, Manning and Assange have done a great job in shaking up and educating the world. We have all benefited from their actions.
In regard to the Zimbabwe generals, if that is the worst that come out of the leaks then that basically confirms that little damage was done compared to the benefits. Given the number of people who were predicting dire consequences and were desperate to prove the damage, quite frankly that is fairly low on the scale.
Keep in mind that no reign of terror is ever gonna make a press release saying "we're such idiots that we didn't know this guy was a threat until Assange told us." The victim might make such a press release, but only if he a) survived, b) correctly deduced that he'd been outed by Assange (instead of assuming it was all his jealous brother-in-law's fault or something), and c) wants to be publicly identified as a CIA shill every day for the rest of his life.
Moreover this isn't the worst we know of. Quite a few Chinese activists have experienced problems that may be related to being outed.
Most importantly as non-Zimbabweans it's very difficult for us to judge the result. If the generals started out as credible commanders of the military, and they could've been bribed into supporting truly free elections Zimbabwe would be a free country today. If they were just assholes who'd peaked in their careers, and couldn't control the troops,
I'd be pretty sure those generals did not come out of the traditional army. They would be better than mugabe, who wouldn't, but not much better. It would not change the situation in Zimbabwe that much. If that is the only reason to hate Assange then it is fairly weak. The other suggestions of people being outed are suspect. There was such a desire to paint the release of information as being harmful that you would be sure to hear about it. Instead we didn't. Instead we heard things that said our freedoms are being severely compromised and that means we gained much much more than we ever lost.