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.'"

Comments

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth

[sabri]

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.

Re:Why would he be arrested?

[The Snowman]

He wouldn't be arrested, they don't have to do that in America anymore - they "detain" you.

Citation needed. Never heard of a single instance of such thing happening in my 40 years of living in the USA.

Ever hear of this guy who spent years in jail being tortured before facing charges? He is even a U.S. citizen -- Julian Assange is not.

Re:Its A Trap!

[LifesABeach]

An unknown source in the DOJ says that most likely the US won't act in its best interests. Was this person talking to some GOTP's? Because I don't know of anyone over the age of 8 that would believe this tripe.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this

[Mr. Slippery]

The Authorization for Use of Military Force is pretty clear about who the US is at war with.

No, it's not. War is a state that exists between two sovereign nations or putative nations. It is not a state that exists between a nation and criminal gang.

Nobody seems to be confused about who the war was against during the "war against fascism" between 1939-1945, but the "war against terror" from 2001-2013 seems to "baffle" people

We were not at war with an abstract concept like "fascism" during WWII, we were at war with Germany, Japan, and Italy; when the governments of those nations signed surrender papers the state of war ended.

Conveniently, there is no government to surrender in the "war" (so-called) on terror. We get to always be at "war" with terror.

Those treaties allow al Qaida members to be held as enemy combatants and tried before military commissions if applicable.

Not quite. Accused members of the criminal organization Al Qaida are entitled to the same civilian trials as any other criminal defendants, unless they were captured on the battlefield while engaging in combat. In that case they are combatants and are either prisoners of war or unlawful combatants; they are entitled to the presumption of POW status until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". But the U.S. doesn't get to say "we know, we just *know* you're an Al Qaida member!"

Re:No need

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Don't forget how Allende killed himself - the first world leader to shoot himself in the back with an M16 from 20 paces, pausing only once to reload!