Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

An Anonymous US Law Enforcement Officer Claims US Wouldn't Arrest Julian Assange

Posted by Unknown on from the with-crossed-fingers dept.

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.'"

63 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We believe you.

    1. Re:Sure... by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can't is a strong word. Sure, they can, but legally they have tenuous grounds to hold him.

    2. Re:Sure... by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To iterate, what I'm saying is that we can't execute US citizens without a fair trial, yet we've done numerous times in the past few years. So "can't" just doesn't fly. "Not supposed to" is more accurate.

    3. Re:Sure... by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      So an AC said he will not be arrested. Well that's enough for me.... wait, Julian, what if it's a trap?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Sure... by thej1nx · · Score: 3, Interesting
      He is not subject to laws of the USA because he is Australian? Wanna bet?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Claims_Act

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosa_v._Alvarez-Machain

      In essence, US claims that one way or the other, USA has jurisdiction over every living person on earth. You might be a British citizen, who has never been to USA and has not broken any of the British laws, but you can be prosecuted regardless, if you knowingly or unknowingly broke US laws, without ever setting foot in USA.

    5. Re:Sure... by Zemran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you heard of a place called Guantanamo that is filled with people that are not US citizens, have never been to the US or committed crimes in the US and most were just defending their country against an invasion, as I hope you would if your country was invaded.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    6. Re:Sure... by Zemran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Would you say that was unjustified?"

      Yes, because that made it murder. If they were not ready to give him a trial they should not have gone after him. You accept that he is the evil nemesis only because the people that made billions from a war, told you he was. Without that fair trial, he was an innocent man and shooting him was murder. He was unarmed when they entered his bedroom, there was no need or reason to shoot him. They should have given him a fair trial so that the world could see the man to be who they claim he was. Now it all looks like a lie.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    7. Re:Sure... by Smauler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone knows he deserved to die is the anti-judicial refrain. I personally am happy he is dead, but there was no justice involved. The government killing people and imprisoning people without a fair and open trial is fucking immoral, no matter what anyone says.

    8. Re:Sure... by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Here I googled the names for you because I'm a nice guy.

    9. Re:Sure... by Rakhar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "but there was no justice involved"

      As a US veteran I actually got teary eyed when I saw the newspaper headlines after Osama was killed with the President saying that "Justice has been served". The President of the United States, calling that justice. The country we have now and the one I enlisted to defend are not the same country.

      The older I get, the harder I find it to be truly patriotic.

    10. Re:Sure... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Most people are trained to be "patriotic" to whatever country they live in from a young age.

      We are taught the pledge of allegiance in class for just this reason.

      I don't want America to lose a war to a foreign invasion, but that doesn't mean that I should go die for her in a pointless war.

      WWII is the last war that really mattered. The rest were about money, politics, oil, etc.

    11. Re:Sure... by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anwar al-Awlaki - intentionally executed without trial.
      Samir Khan - unintentionally executed as part of the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.
      Jude Kenan Mohammad - intentionally executed. Had previously been convicted of terrorism conspiracy, but not to a sufficient degree to actually be imprisoned.
      Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - 16 year old with no personal involvement in terrorism, but who had a father (Anwar al-Awlaki) who was involved. Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary, stated that he "should have had a more responsible father." Unclear at what level the execution was a mistake.

      Three of the four are arguably "bad guys" - but they should still have gotten a proper trial, so we could determine if they are. The last one doesn't even seem to be a bad guy, just somebody that happened to be born to an unfortunate father.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    12. Re:Sure... by Smauler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm English, by the way.

      Most people are trained to be "patriotic" to whatever country they live in from a young age.
      We are taught the pledge of allegiance in class for just this reason.

      No... No, we are not. No one is trained to be patriotic in England. Seriously. There is no patriotism at all in schools, no proudness of what the UK has achieved. This is a US phenomenon.

      I personally love my country... but that has nothing to do with education, and the bits I love are probably the bits someone else who loves the UK hates. That's part of what I love about my country.

      Most people learn about how important the UK is now (7th biggest economy in the world) and was (largest empire of all time) after they have left school.

    13. Re:Sure... by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Most countries are not like that. The US is a weird place when it comes to nationalistic indoctrination. In the countries I've lived in (apart from the US) it's the insecure who cling to nationalism, as if somehow the great deeds of others who marched/fought/wrote/taught under the same flag rubs off on them, making them greater than they are if they never had that flag to stand under, and not the default position. Don't think the rest of the world is so bizarrely patriotic as the US, as most of the world has seen where patriotism leads. Patriotism is useful as a rallying call for the weak and oppressed, but a vicious weapon for the powerful. At some point in the life of a country or people, nationalism must be retired if clear heads are to prevail to decide the future path of said country or people.

    14. Re:Sure... by dave420 · · Score: 2

      It's worse than that - as they've had no trial, what they were doing is pure hearsay. They might have just been on holiday visiting relatives, or teaching, or delivering humanitarian aid. We simply don't know.

  2. Its A Trap! by Tiger4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Its A Trap! by LifesABeach · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Its A Trap! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are apparently a fortunate person. I know people over the age of 20 who would believe this nonsense. They'll believe anything their favorite talking head says to believe.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Its A Trap! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The quoted article doesn't SAY that, not anywhere. It's called "making shit up" otherwise known as writing Slashdot headlines, and there is no such implication in US law. Normally, an arrest happens on suspicion and an indictment follows. Sometimes, they do it the other way around but it's never the case that the police need an indictment to arrest you.

  3. I could imagine a truth buried behind this by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They might not arrest him. They might just shoot him.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by asmkm22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or detain him indefinitely. Many of the people in Gitmo haven't actually been "arrested" or charged with anything.

    2. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except we have not declared war.

    3. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by DaHat · · Score: 2

      No... they are being held as unlawful enemy combatants... there is a difference. Being a POW comes with certain rights under the Geneva Conventions, not so for those down in Gitmo.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    4. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      End of a conflict against a tactic.... be a long wait for that one..
      The US has a court system and its still working.... and US law and international treaty obligations are clear, get people before a real court.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except we have not declared war.

      Technically, we were never at war with any of the countries those people being detained are from. unless you think declaring war on abstract ideas counts.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no, NO! The prisoners in Guantanamo have been denied status as POW's. That special legal fallacy of "enemy combatant" was created specifically to deny those prisoners the legal benefits of either POW's or criminals.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      To qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions you have to wage war lawfully, it is part of the enforcement mechanism of the treaty. Al Qaida doesn't do so. They are unlawful combatants. They could still be charged with war crimes. And no, it isn't a legal fallacy.

      --
      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
    8. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We didn't have a war on fascism dumbass. We had a war against Japan, and added Germany and Italy to the list shortly afterwards.

      Japan was an Imperial Monarchy, and had nothing to do with fascism. Meanwhile Spain's Fascist General Franco was never a target of US military action.

    9. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress is pretty clear.

      SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

      (a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

      --
      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
    10. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by Pav · · Score: 2

      A "competent tribuneral"? Well, the UK managed to get all their gitmo prisoners released... the conservative Australian government was less interested, but after political pressure they at least got their prisoner (David Hicks) to an Australian prison. I remember the "burn him!" sentiment in my home city media contrasting with the seeming universal support he got in Adelaide (his home city) - down there he was "Adelaides David Hicks". Each and every one of those prisoners may be evil and guilty as hell... I certainly don't know... but a modern and just socienty doesn't do things the gitmo way.

    11. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      There are also established protocols for holding POWs. Both confinement and adjudication of any war crimes charges can and are being handled at Guantanamo Bay, a US Navy base. There is no reason to bring them into the continental US. There is no need to bring them to an Army installation. There is no reason that courts martial or military commissions can't be held at Guantanamo which has also previously been used for confinement in other contingencies. There is little new in this, just unfamiliarity for many people.

      --
      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
    12. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!"

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words, they are a special made up category or person that has no rights at all. I wander what other excituing new categories we'll come up with.

      Back in the world ruled by law, you are either a POW and entitled to all of the rights under the Geneva Convention OR you are a civilian entitled to all of the rights of a civilian prisoner, in this case, Constitutional rights.

      Asked if that binary bit is a 1 or a 0, you are claiming it's fish.

    14. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by DaHat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is not a declaration of war.

      Where then is the authoritative description of what a declaration of war is, in what form it must take, and the exact language required?

      I'll save you some time... there is no such thing.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    15. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by sjames · · Score: 2

      The law doesn't allow for more than the two states. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit POW and a little bit civilian. Just like you can't legally be sorta-kinda under arrest. You are either under arrest or you are free to leave.

      If you haven't lawfully waged war, then you are a civilian. Our Constitution is quite clear about how we must treat civilians.

    16. Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this by dave420 · · Score: 2

      They weren't all prisoners of war, but prisoners of circumstance. They were not all fighting. Due to the American offer of "money for terrorists", many poor people simply pointed fingers at enemies or competition or strangers or whoever wandered by, said "terrorist!" and got paid. That's not how prisoners of war are discovered. Prisoners of war are discovered on the battlefield, first hand, by the country which takes them prisoner.

      But tell yourself whatever you want to hear as if the US has any sort of moral high-ground in this farce of international conduct you seem so eager and willing to defend. You and those who think like you are doing more harm to your country than Al Qaeda ever could. I should point fingers at you and get you thrown in Gitmo and see how well you cope. But I wouldn't, even if I could, because I'm not a hate-filled, nationalist, knee-jerk reactionary like your good self, defending the repeatedly-abused husband who purports to love them. I feel sorry for you, and what must have happened in your life, for an obviously intelligent person to become so twisted and perverse in their outlook on morality, humanity, and justice.

  4. Cops Lie, Film @ 11 by flyneye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Not true that you never could. It used to be that cops were mostly decent people trying to protect society from bad people. There are still quite a few that are like that. The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so. The brainwashing and hiring tactics are working, because they are getting worse and worse.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so.

      People being ignorant of history, that is not a new phenomenon.

      The policing professions have always been attractive and accessible to the worst kinds of human beings. Asshole cops have always existed.

    3. Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so.

      People being ignorant of history, that is not a new phenomenon.

      The policing professions have always been attractive and accessible to the worst kinds of human beings. Asshole cops have always existed.

      We went from having some asshole cops and mostly good meaning cops to a situation today where most cops are bullies or worse and the few good apples are drowned in the institutional omerta' that reigns in police departments across the country. So hell fucking no, the situation today is nothing like it was 30, 40 or even 50 years ago.
      The Police abdicated their role of "peace officers" the moment they went full paramilitary on us. Today they are just as bad as the real criminals. I wouldn't talk to a police officer even if I saw a crime being commited. They might arrest me.

    4. Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 by flyneye · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My mind goes farther and farther back in time.
      When and where are you talking about? They were lying shit in the 70s and I presume the 60s from stories I hear. Beyond that the history books aren't kind either. I guess television always showed fictitious nice cops. I suppose the highway patrolmen touring the elementary school safety circuit are probably nice guys, but, those are the ones they send on tour. I'm fairly loaded with psych case histories and results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory battery of tests of cops over the last 30 years or so in my area. They're fairly simple, power hungry and can have some pretty major deviations and will still be hired. That's the profile you get, here and elsewhere. As long as you're no brainiac, have no record and can read and write,you can be a real nut job and still be a cop fresh out of training and believe me, the majority do. The worst of them trickle down to the podunk towns after and if they get fired from urban areas.
      Here in my area of the state, there are 3 separate cases of incarcerating officers sexually assaulting suspects this year alone. There is also a regional rash THIS YEAR of 6 cases of suspects fleeing, jumping in ponds and drowning. Not years previous, just this year.This is a two county area I'm speaking of.
      We have two officers up for murder and one, a police trainer, convicted of murdering his wife and committing arson to cover it up. There aren't even a million people here. This is only the headline stuff too. Soooo much more.
      It ain't 9-11 anymore, the polish wore off and all we have left is punks with badges all the way up to Federal levels.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    5. Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, the ponds.

      There was a case in Oklahoma several years back. A young black man eluded police until he ran into a pond and drowned. The autopsy stated quite clearly that he drowned to death. Oddly, that drowned young man had some bullet holes in his back. I didn't view the body, so I can't swear that there were holes in his back - but I did talk to a member of his family who did view the body before it was dressed for the funeral.

      We screwed up badly when fleeing and evading the police was made into a felony. Quite naturally, a police officer is authorized to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony. If you've done nothing else wrong, just turning a corner to avoid being seen by a cop is reason to be shot to death.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  5. Also by SB9876 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. No need by bob_super · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    1. Re:No need by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Informative

      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!

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  7. Why would he be arrested? by BringsApples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Why would he be arrested? by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He does not have to take up arms, look at what they want to charge Snowden with and what they did charge Manning with. All they have to claim is that information published helps the enemy. Last I checked, Manning dumped his information to Wikileaks who dumped it to the public. Assange will get worse than Manning in the way of sentencing, and the precedent is already set for the charges.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Why would he be arrested? by The+Snowman · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    3. Re:Why would he be arrested? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assange will get worse than Manning in the way of sentencing, and the precedent is already set for the charges.

      False. Long standing precedent says that Assange is in the clear, provided that he didn't actively encourage Manning to break the law. Assange had no duty to maintain the confidentiality of classified information, he's essentially in the same legal position as the New York Times when it publishes classified information revealed to it by sources. This is the legal precedent going back at least as far as the Pentagon Papers, and to the best of my knowledge we've never seen a reporter charged (much less convicted) for the publication of classified material.

      The only thing that would get him into trouble would be if he actively encouraged Manning to break the law, in that instance he could be facing conspiracy charges. Did he do that? Nobody other than Manning knows for sure. I find it unlikely, since there are folks in Washington who really wanted to get Assange, and it would have made sense for Manning to trade his eventual testimony against him for a reduced sentence, if he had such testimony to offer.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Why would he be arrested? by BringsApples · · Score: 2

      I guess you've never heard of "stop and frisk" either, but that's totally detaining someone, and for no (legal) reason.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  8. Re:Come on Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Come on home Julian..... you can trust us.....

    He's not from the US, dipshit.

  9. As A Matter of Fact... by srobert · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... 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?

  10. Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to the Fly.

  11. Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth by sabri · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  12. Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth by able1234au · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Anonymous Source Says Turn Yourselves In by retroworks · · Score: 2

    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
  14. Re:Land of the Free by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    so, they won't arrest him, but they might put him on a big scale and weigh him against a rather large duck.

    I see.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  15. Re:Lack of indictment diplomatic bargaining chip? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The US has few options - get the UK to clear to the building - the junta option.
    A CIA/NGO backed colour revolution in Ecuador would be useful.
    As for the trial - if its open the media gets to report. The US is sure of the optics of a show trial.
    A closed trial with cleared lawyers talking in a sealed court room would be bad optics for a person not from the USA without a US security clearance.
    I would say a change of EU and South American politics would be the long term US option.
    Reduce the embassy cover and let the UK 'move'.
    A show trial in the EU for the US creates a political persona not seen since the 1970-80's Soviet Union and their court system.
    A security trial in the US creates a political persona not seen since the 1970-80's Soviet Union and their court system.
    The only real option for the US is long term trying to make any 'news' aspect go away.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Troll mod? For factual information? by Shakrai · · Score: 2

    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.
  17. I rather believe in Santa Claus by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    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 !
    1. Re:I rather believe in Santa Claus by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey Julian, it's even been leaked by an anonymous source. You're into that kind of stuff, right?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:I rather believe in Santa Claus by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      It is highly reasonably this is the truth. What he said was that there are no indictments yet and no warrants from the process. This is entirely likely to be the case specifically to avoid strengthening any amnesty claims and eventually allow some third party deportation eventually. Charges, if any, would likely wait until there is a chance of actually getting him. Remember, the officer only said as of now and specifically left the future open citing an unfinished grand jury process.

  18. Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth by russotto · · Score: 2

    Rape by deception? Is that what Cinderella did to Prince Charming?