Washington Post: Assange 'Unlikely To Be Prosecuted In US'

vikingpower writes "The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials." That "all but" probably wouldn't feel all that comforting if this announcement applied to me.

Comments

Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rot in jail for years before a 'trial'? Oh hell yes we'd do that to him.

Embarassed the powers that be... They got a hardon for him now.

Admiral Ackbar disagrees

[Anonymous Coward]

[You know what goes here.]

Re:Admiral Ackbar disagrees

[Thanshin]

Of course we do!

Mon Mothma: [to Restaurant waiter] I'll have the calamari.
Admiral Ackbar: Well. I guess I'll have the insensitive bitch. With a side of fuck you!
[Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode II (2008) (TV)]

Well I Guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess the Washington Post can say whatever they like.

Please accept my personal guarantee that if Julian Assange were to arrive in New York on Christmas Day, he would be immediately arrested and charged with all sorts of obscure charges. He would then rot in a cell for several years(~6) before seeing the inside of a court room.

I guarantee it.

- Not George Zimmerman

Re:Well I Guess...

[Shakrai]

He would then rot in a cell for several years(~6) before seeing the inside of a court room.

The Sixth Amendment says otherwise. Defendants have the right to a speedy trial. This right isn't always invoked, for various reasons (often defense counsel is the one asking for adjournments, in which case the right doesn't apply because the Defendant has waived it), but it's there. In New York State the People have six months from the filing of felony charges to either move forward with said charges or dismiss them, the only exception being for Murder I cases, which I believe have a 12 month timeline. Don't know what the exact deadlines are in the Federal system, but they're there.

George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman is an asshole, but I would have acquitted him if I had been a Juror. "Beyond a reasonable doubt", and there was plenty of reasonable doubt to go around in that particular case. That's actually an example of our system getting one right, given the disparate interests that all lined up against him, and the cynical attempt by those interests to poison the jury pool.

Re:Well I Guess...

[mwvdlee]

He would then rot in a cell for several years(~6) before seeing the inside of a court room.

The Sixth Amendment says otherwise.

The Sixth Amendment doesn't apply to Guantanamo Bay.

Legally it probably does, but who's going to do anything about it?

Re:Well I Guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sixth Amendment says otherwise. Defendants have the right to a speedy trial.

As New York is within 100 miles of a border, coast, airport or child under the age of 19, the Constitution can and is safely ignored.

Re:Well I Guess...

[Shakrai]

The Sixth Amendment doesn't apply to Guantanamo Bay.

Let's just ignore the inconvenient truth that nobody new has been admitted to Gitmo in years, those who are there were all captured on foreign battlefields and received the due process entitled to them under the Geneva conventions, and the titanic P/R disaster that would ensue if any American administration (never mind this administration) were to send him there.

If the United States wanted Assange badly enough to resort to extra-judicial measures we'd already have him. He's not that important. He hasn't killed any American citizens, or done anything that American journalists haven't been doing for years. If left to his own devices he would probably make a complete ass out of himself, sooner rather than later if the comments from his Wikileaks colleagues are any indication.

Re:Well I Guess...

[Slayer]

Let's just ignore the inconvenient truth that nobody new has been admitted to Gitmo in years, those who are there were all captured on foreign battlefields and received the due process entitled to them under the Geneva conventions, and the titanic P/R disaster that would ensue if any American administration (never mind this administration) were to send him there.

Look at how Bradley (Chelsea) Manning was treated and you will realize that horrific abuses of the judical system appear even outside of Guantanamo Bay with the full support of the US government and in broad daylight for everyone to see. The US goverment willingly accepted the resulting "titanic P/R desaster" and currently goes through another major embarrassment with this Snowden story.

Not all inmates of Guantanamo Bay were enemy combattants, by the way, there were prominent cases of innocent inmates who were exposed to secret rendition flights, torture and other forms of mistreatment before they ended up in Guantanamo Bay, where they were held for years.

Suggesting that the US goverment has stopped treating their constitution as toilet paper or cares in the least about how the world perceives their actions is naive at best.

Re:Well I Guess...

[sgt_doom]

Yup, the same Washington Post which ran columns for many years by Joseph Alsop, without ever mentioning his cousin was Kermit Roosevelt, a high-level CIA dood. And the same Washington Post which ran columns for many years by Cleveland Amory, without mentioning that his brother was a deputy director at the CIA. Yes, and the same Washington Post owned by Katherine Meyer Graham the daughter of a former Federal Reserve chairman, and the wife of a former guy who worked for Allen Dulles in the OSS during WWII.

The same WaPo now headed by Bob Woodward, the guy who never really gave us Deep Throat.
It's a small world after all ......

can't trust them

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama/DoJ also promised they wouldn't go after Cannabis dispensaries and growers in medical states but that was a lie.

Re:can't trust them

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the current administration's lies, that is the one you pick? How about the promises to protect whistle-blowers?

You now have to go the the Wayback Machine to even find it.

"Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process."

Re:can't trust them

[gmuslera]

Obama said in the initial campaing that will protect whisteblowers. See how that ended.

Re:can't trust them

[Java Pimp]

Sadly my mod points expired...

Re:can't trust them

[interkin3tic]

I remember when Obama said that while running for office. The DOJ on the other hand made no such claim. I'm not defending the DOJ, they still in my opinion gleefully trampled on states rights and individual rights, and over an idiotic law. Just pointing out that I don't think they ever said they wouldn't.

You might also point out that Obama then lied again to try to cover for his first lie. Except he was in office during the more recent lie. With about the same effort of coming up with that lie, he could have changed pot's scheduling status to actually fulfill his campaign promise, yet instead he chose to lie. Given the number of people who mildly support pot legalization, I can't fathom why he would allow the raids to happen.

Re:can't trust them

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can blow the whistle but they arrest the one who hears it? Yeah, that makes sense.

Re:can't trust them

[houghi]

[Politician] said in the initial campaing that [insert anything here]. See how that ended.

There, fixed that for you.
What will happen is that the other part now will win and we will be saying the identical same thing in a few years, after we realize that the promises were a lie.
Then we will vote for the opposition (or not) and the same will happen.

What about the UK?

[AmiMoJo]

He is still wanted in the UK for skipping bail. Even if the US were not lying he still can't just walk out of the embassy.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

Plus the whole wanted in Sweden for rape thing.

Re:What about the UK?

[Xest]

It depends on what's actually going on. If the whole extradition was orchestrated by the US and the rape charges really are a conspiracy then just because the US wouldn't prosecute him there doesn't mean they're going to drop that avenue.

If it isn't a conspiracy by the US then one of two things can happen:

If Sweden drops the charges then he'll probably get a menial punishment for skipping bail, not likely to be excessive (you can kill someone whilst speeding way over the limit and avoid jail in the UK for crying out loud).

If Sweden doesn't drop the charges then Assange will probably stay in the embassy until Ecuador gets fed up of him, until Sweden starts being reasonable and allows questioning to occur within the embassy (something they can do, despite the lies otherwise, because they've done exactly that in the past), until he gives up and let's Sweden's obscure (in)justice system have it's way with him, or until he dies.

So this whole unlikely to be prosecuted thing may just be weasel words for "We're going to pretend we're nice people that believe in justice because we don't believe he's going anywhere for years anyway and say he's safe from prosecution, but we'll use the qualifier 'unlikely' just in case he does somehow get free so that we can change our mind without having lied". I suppose technically it may be a rather weak attempt by the US government to try and add weight to their pretense that there's no conspiracy against him (assuming there even is) so that Sweden and the UK can pretend he's just paranoid for no reason and that he should come out of the embassy and let them have their way with him.

Either way none of it changes Assange's situation in the slightest so I don't know what the point in the statement is. If the US really wants to change the status quo they need to make a more explicit statement along the lines of "Our inquiry has found that we have absolutely no grounds to prosecute Julian Assange, as he has broken no US law, and therefore we will not be seeking his extradition or prosecution under any circumstances related to the files leaked and published by his organisation to date". It wouldn't mean they wouldn't of course, but at least they'd have to face the consequences politically. The fact they wont issue such an explicit statement and are just putting out meaningless sound bites implies to me that they're just trying to muddy the waters on the issue and trying to win some good will without actually doing anything to deserve it.

Re:What about the UK?

[locofungus]

Skipping bail is criminal contempt of court in the UK

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63

Penalties are severe:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/contempt_of_court/

An immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to impose upon a person who interferes with the administration of justice, unless the circumstances are wholly exceptional

He would have been (was?) allowed to argue his case that he shouldn't be extradited to Sweden due to the subsequent risk of extradition to the US. I cannot see how he could possibly convince a court that this would have happened and simultaneously show that the same arguments wouldn't have held water when extradition proceedings were in effect.

I can see he might possibly avoid jail in the UK only by surrendering and going to Sweden. But I wouldn't bet that the UK wouldn't want to extradite him back for contempt of court proceedings (or maybe they wouldn't extradite him to Sweden until after he was convicted and sentenced.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

Point taken over "Sexual misconduct". Whether it's alleged or not and why he's wanted isn't really relevant. He's still wanted there and very likely to be charged whether guilty or not.

Re:What about the UK?

[Luckyo]

That's pretty much up in the air, and pointedly that kind sexual misconduct that is in question doesn't even exist in laws... well anywhere outside Sweden really. Certainly not in UK. Heck, even in Sweden prosecutor that wasn't buckling for femnazi publicity dropped the case. Than another one who really wanted it picked the case up and started the shitstorm. Or was asked to by special interests, who thoroughly infiltrated Swedish prosecutors office at that point because of all the IP enforcement pressure.

Re:What about the UK?

[Xest]

The site you linked is merely the CPS' information on the issue, that's the Crown Prosecution Service - i.e. the people who advocate primarily for the police, so they're going to overhype the seriousness of laws because they want to deter people from breaking them as it makes their job easier.

But regardless, even the link you posted alone says the maximum penalty for skipping bail is 6 months in jail. That'd likely be applied as a suspended sentence (i.e. no actual jail time) or even just written off altogether as it would be covered under the time he spent under house arrest if Sweden dropped it's extradition request. The advice the judiciary uses is different though, and having just Googled the Bail Act (1976) legislation itself the maximum penalty is apparently actually 12 months. The judiciary's guidelines can be found here:

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_Fail_to_Surrender_to_Bail.pdf

Note that the case that would apply to Assange, has a starting point of 14 days in custody if you plead not guilty, Assange wouldn't do that as there's no question he's guilty so that would reduce it further, if the extradition request was dropped then that would've meant there was no case he was skipping bail over, which would further reduce the penalty. Realistically it looks like he'd probably only get a community order, if given the exceptional circumstances the judge didn't just let him off outright completely.

As an aside, reading the bail act was interesting though. I can only guess an extradition request places a criminal charge on you in itself because Assange hasn't been charged by Sweden, only wanted for questioning and the bail act explicitly states it applies to criminal charges. If extradition in itself (as opposed to the reason for extradition) doesn't apply a criminal charge against you then this implies he should never have been placed under bail in the first place, but the law is a funny thing and I'm not a lawyer, so despite the fact I can interpret laws as they are written, perhaps laws as their written aren't how lawyers and judges interpret them so who knows. Maybe a lawyer here can explain how extradition for questioning but without charge results in you being placed into the criminal category that is necessary according to the bail act.

But I digress - manslaughter by dangerous driving is serious also, but you don't necessarily end up actually in jail. The judiciary's sentencing guidelines along show that skipping bail is really not taken as seriously as you suggest, and they're the folks who determine the sentences in practice after all.

Re:What about the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the case that would apply to Assange, has a starting point of 14 days in custody if you plead not guilty, Assange wouldn't do that as there's no question he's guilty so that would reduce it further, if the extradition request was dropped then that would've meant there was no case he was skipping bail over, which would further reduce the penalty. Realistically it looks like he'd probably only get a community order, if given the exceptional circumstances the judge didn't just let him off outright completely.

Not the way I read the aggravating factors - I think it might easily be possible to show he has had 'a lengthy absence', it was 'a serious attempt to evade justice' and it was 'a determined attempt seriously to undermine the course of justice'. There are also two relevant paragraphs given the original warrant was for various alleged sexual assaults:

12. However, the specific nature of the original offence may significantly affect the harm or likelihood of harm caused by the failure to surrender. Particular types of offence (such as violent or sexual offences) may have implications for public protection and safety and the offender’s failure to surrender might cause fear and distress to witnesses.

13. Seriousness is not reduced automatically by subsequent acquittal of the original offence...

The starting point for the sentencing guidelines reflects the fact that most people who don't turn up to court are facing relatively minor charges and don't make a serious, elaborate or sustained attempt to avoid court like fleeing to an embassy. It doesn't mean that the full year will never be sentenced, particularly where there are multiple aggravating factors.

As an aside, reading the bail act was interesting though. I can only guess an extradition request places a criminal charge on you in itself because Assange hasn't been charged by Sweden, only wanted for questioning and the bail act explicitly states it applies to criminal charges.

No, 1(1)b refers to people under arrest for an offence, and Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrant against Assange.

Re:What about the UK?

[Shakrai]

and pointedly that kind sexual misconduct that is in question doesn't even exist in laws... well anywhere outside Sweden really

You're wrong. His alleged actions would be Rape in the Third Degree (a Class E felony) in New York State. I cited the actual statutes the last time this conversation occurred, and can dig them up again if you doubt me.

In a nutshell, if someone gives qualified consent for sexual intercourse, you commit a crime when you engage in behaviors that you know they haven't consented to. You can't stick it up a woman's ass if she tells you "no anal", or dive in without a condom if she tells you that's the only way she'll have sex. Doing these things is not nearly as serious as forcible rape, legally speaking (morally I think it's nearly as repugnant), but it's still rape. If convicted you would earn a lifetime ban from gun ownership, a loss of your voting rights, and the requirement to register as a sex offender. You'd probably avoid jail time, assuming it was your first offense, but you'd be on probation for many years, which means no alcohol, no drugs, random tests for each, random searches of your residence, weekly meetings with your probation officer, travel restrictions, etc.

In short, it's nothing to sneeze at, nor is this alleged behavior only criminalized in Sweden.

Re:What about the UK?

[Luckyo]

Nope. The allegation was never that of rape. It was an allegation of the fact that he did not use a condom.

The fact that she came to the police a week after, and her main piece of evidence... was a USED CONDOM got her all but laughed out until a certain prosecutor, known for her femnazi links decided to get some fame.

You're going to have to give me examples of how this is "third degree rape". Present examples where a man was convicted in a similar case, using that kind of evidence. Thank you.

Re:What about the UK?

[Shakrai]

It was an allegation of the fact that he did not use a condom.

My understanding is that she agreed to have sex with him, provided he use a condom, a condition he complied with, then at some later point he dove in for round two unprotected. If that is indeed what happened then it would be considered rape within the jurisdiction I call home, and I suspect many others as well.

Here's my post from the other conversation. Before you get high and mighty, stop and consider the fact that I've never said he's actually done these things, only that his alleged actions as I understand them would be considered rape in my jurisdiction. You don't get to ignore someone who tells you "only with a condom", "no anal", "no rough play", or any one of the millions of limitations normal human beings choose to apply to the sexual act. Such an action is both legally wrong and morally reprehensible.

As far as this specific case, with this specific person, I doubt we'll ever know what really happened. That's par for the course with most rape accusations, even those without media involvement and grandstanding politicians.

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

Plus the whole wanted in Sweden for rape thing.

For not using a condom when he fucked a CIA whore they sent him.

Re:What about the UK?

[Belial6]

Too bad we live in such a misandristic society. If we didn't, we could see the huge number of women who commit these kinds of 'rape' prosecuted as if we were all equals.

Re:What about the UK?

[Luckyo]

The issue is that she:

1. Made those claims a week after the case.
2. Brought in a used condom as evidence. That is a WEEK AFTER IT HAPPENED. She saved the condom they used. As evidence. It was so fucked up that the officer taking a statement took a photo copy of the condom. You can't make that stuff up. It reads just as hilariously stupid as it was.
3. The claims were made after this woman "compared notes" with another female activist, to find out that she wasn't the only one shagging with Assange.

My point is that there is no way in hell that any country other than Sweden would try to prosecute anyone for any kind of rape based on these kinds of claims. If they did, they could prosecute anyone, and I do mean ANYONE including babies and geriatrics for same kind of rape. In fact, even Sweden, where woman are known to give lectures on how to use rape accusations as a weapon against ex-boyfriends isn't trying to prosecute him for rape.

You on the other hand listed several levels of punishment, only available in the insane punishment land of US by the way and no way any of that would ever be applicable in Sweden (just FYI) and completely ignored the fact that any sane prosecutor in US, who's action would be NEEDED to make such a case would ever try to prosecute a man for any kind of rape based on these claims/evidence.

To divert the discussion away from this fact and into listing consequences for actual rape, as if he were prosecuted to brutally assaulting this woman, is a pretty huge and very obvious misrepresentation of the entire case. Why would you do it?

Re:What about the UK?

[Shakrai]

My point is that there is no way in hell that any country other than Sweden would try to prosecute anyone for any kind of rape based on these kinds of claims.

Your original point, and the one that I replied to was (emphasis mine):

That's pretty much up in the air, and pointedly that kind sexual misconduct that is in question doesn't even exist in laws... well anywhere outside Sweden really.

I disproved that assertion. The rest of your latest post is a simple attempt at redirection. The alleged behaviors that I've discussed would be illegal in numerous jurisdictions, not just Sweden, and are actions that most every human being would consider morally reprehensible. Of course, I'm dealing with someone that uses sophisticated terms like 'feminazi' (Rush Limbaugh called, he wants his meme back), so perhaps my expectations of you were unrealistic.

Re:What about the UK?

[sgt_doom]

He's wanted for questioning, what part of that don't or can't you understand. WikiLeaks' Assange has yet to be charged with anything, he is to be extradited physically to Sweden, because somehow, as the British Justice so acerbically stated, the effing Swedes are to incompetent to fly, or call over to, the UK to question Assange. Now why does he have to be physically extradited just for questioning, dood?

And why are you still so effing ignorant about the entire matter, dood?

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Re:What about the UK?

[Shakrai]

I'm not certain I follow your point here?

My biggest complaint, as a heterosexual male, is the fact that the legal system gives me zero recourse after ejaculation. She lied about being on birth control? Tough luck buddy, pony up 15% of your post-tax salary for the next 21 years, and feel free to forfeit your passport/drivers license/gun permit/voting registration if you refuse to pay. Of course the inverse doesn't apply, because she can abort that fetus right up until the second trimester (and beyond in some states), or give it up for adoption anytime thereafter, while the man has zero say after his orgasm....

Is that what you're trying to hint at? If so I feel your pain, though I think it's more of an indictment of the legal system and less of an excuse for the alleged behaviors of Julian Assange.

As an aside, clearly Mr. Assange isn't an American, or he wouldn't be so quick to leap for sex without a condom. It'd be really ironic if this case was about child support instead of an accusation of rape.....

Re:What about the UK?

[Luckyo]

No, femnazi is actually an appropriate term to describe that particular form of swedish feminism. They act very much like nazis to the point of advocating suppression and even eradication of males from all aspects of society save servitude. This is not some right winged US based PR bullshit, but sad reality of some aspects of modern swedish feminism, which evolved from one of the most tolerant societies on the planet. Which is really damn sad, as Sweden is among the best places to live in today.

And again, no sane legal system would ever apply to this case. Sorry, "potentially not wearing the condom with proof of used condom" is not going to equal "nth degree RAPE" anywhere. Not even in Sweden.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

I'm not sure what your point is.

One of the two women who accused him is alleged to have CIA connections, but even if true, that doesn't mean everything she does is mandated by the CIA. You suggesting that she's a "whore" seems to be trying to excuse Assange's alleged actions, which, if true, even if not criminal, are still pretty reprehensible. If a woman says "use a condom" then you use a fucking condom (and yes, I realise there are no toher types of condom).

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

I think you believe in unicorns too. I am just getting used to those creepy accusations. Get just a little anti-US or against the system run by the war mongers and the public money grabbers and you'll end up as a sex offender or a known gay. Remember Stross-Kan, Berluskoni, Assange, Manning, Polansky and others. It's getting typical and boring. Btw, the whole anti-catholic staged campaign happened because the Pope then said something against the invasion of Iraq and didn't help the US to disclose European bank secrets. :-) You underestimate the scale of the influence of the US surveilence machine. Btw, we are being read. :-)

Re:What about the UK?

[Belial6]

Yes, that is what I am getting at. You said that in New York state, if a woman tells a man that she only consents if he uses birth control and a man has sex with her anyway, it is a class E felony. There is no excuse for not holding women to the same standard.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

Of course I believe in unicorns. Except they're big heavy grey animals that live in Africa and are called Rhinos.

The idea that this whole thing is an America conspiracy is actually prety insulting to the American intelligence services. You really think they couldn't have ruined his reputation in a less cack-handed way?

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

Imo, that was the only possible way to sway the public opinion from him, the license to kill is probably also given, but they don't want another martyr, one King is enough.

Re:What about the UK?

[Xest]

"No, 1(1)b refers to people under arrest for an offence, and Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrant against Assange."

But this is the very crux of the problem, Assange isn't under arrest for an offence, he's under arrest because he's wanted for questioning which is an extremely obscure situation. If Sweden were to drop the request for questioning then he'd effectively have been under arrest for for nothing all that time. I don't see how any judge could realistically punish him given those circumstances.

If he was actually wanted because he'd been charged for the assaults you'd be dead right, but he's not been charged. Even those who agree with the judges decision to authorise extradition for questioning because the judge has interpreted the law right admit that the law makes no sense because extradition is intended for crimes, not mere questioning and it hits at the core of the problem with the EAW.

Or in other words, Assange is avoiding an unjust and nonsensical implementation of the law. The judges right now have to interpret it as it's written and so have to authorise extradition, but if the request is dropped then what was he actually being held on bail for? It certainly wasn't for any actual criminal charges.

Regarding your comment about the starting point being for relatively minor crimes, that's already covered in the exact table I directed you too - that's the difference between magistrates and county court. The magistrates guidelines are for less serious issues, the county court is where serious issues are escalated to and it was the county court section I was referring to.

But again, even if they threw the maximum punishment at him, just for arguments sake let's say they did, then he'd already served that under bail conditions before he absconded so it'd still be written offer regardless because they can't not subtract time served when that time should never have been served.

Re:What about the UK?

[Xest]

I'm fully aware of the case. Just because I did something retarded and incorrectly phrased it doesn't mean you need to go full retard "dood".

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

What, accusing him of a crime that may, or may not, be rape, or even a crime for that matter, when they could just as easily frame him for a scenario that was rape.

I can't quite work out the scenario you're presenting here. Did Assange have sex with this Miss A? Did he have sex with Miss W? Did he have unprotected sex with Miss W the next day, or was that a fabrication? If it was a fabrication, why admit that they had consensual sex the night before?

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

Of course they worked with him that way and would use any pretext to compromise and prosecute him. And they found it appropriate to use that condom as a ground for accusations. Btw, sex is nobody's business but the two. If you care about it happened or not, if you admit that some elders or the authority or any one else can interfere, you deserve neither freedom nor privacy. Get used to it when they check and look at your genitals whenever they want and locked up for the rest of your life. You're nothing but a slave. Btw, I despise Clinton for having to answer publicly about Monica. He should have said that that was nobody's business and fucked them off because it's a free country. But no, definitely it is not. Stay free.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

Well, if someone has sex with me without my consent, I'd actually rather like it if the authorities get involved. Maybe that's just me.

You seem to have shifted from conspiracy theorist to paranoid ranting though. Maybe I am a slave, but you aren't doing a very good job of convincing me.

As far as I can understand it, you're saying that Assange had sex with the second woman, while she was still asleep, and without using a condom, and this is what the Swedish authorities want to prosecute him on. Is that right? Because I agree there. I just can't see why this is seen as non shitty, possibly criminal behaviour by Assange.

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

You believe in anything they say. All that is obvious is a good sex with consent. :-) Don't trust prosecutors and authorities, and whores, they'll sell their own moms if it can help win a case. They are confirmed liars.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

By "whore" are you referring to Assange, or the women he slept with? Because in this instance, Assange seems to be the bigger whore.

I'm actually faily neutral on who's telling the truth. It's just that usually liars lie for some sort of personal gain. Why admit there was any sort of consent at all? You seem to be unable to answer this and keep switching to ad hominem, which gets a bit tiresome.

Your scenario seems to be based on everyone else being absolutely incompetent and Assange being a saint.

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

How would you call a woman who sleeps with you because it's her secretive assignment? :-) Who uses a condom argument to get you punished with a perspective of the capital punishment or eternal imprisonment which is the same after they they've done with you in Sweden and extradite you to the US? Remember how Manning was victimized in prison? He's no saint but he's helped the US troops withdraw sooner from the bloody war in Iraq thus saving your money (war is expensive) and the lives of your compatriots (no money can pay ). I don't see a hint of gratitude. And your concern about the condom is low by comparison. Pull yourself together.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

How would you call a woman who sleeps with you because it's her secretive assignment?

I'd call her a spy.

Who uses a condom argument to get you punished with a perspective of the capital punishment or eternal imprisonment which is the same after they they've done with you in Sweden and extradite you to the US?

I'd call her an incompetent idiot who should be fired as a spy if this was the case. Why can't Assange be extradited from Britain?

Remember how Manning was victimized in prison?

Yes. They didn't need to fabricate any evidence there. She's guilty as charged.

He's no saint but he's helped the US troops withdraw sooner from the bloody war in Iraq thus saving your money (war is expensive) and the lives of your compatriots (no money can pay ).

Perhaps. What does this have to do with Assange's sexual activities?

I don't see a hint of gratitude.

Because we're not talking about Manning's activities. We're talking about Assange.

And your concern about the condom is low by comparison. Pull yourself together.

I'm more concerned about the allegations that the US can't come up with a decent smear campaign. Chelsea Manning's activities don't really have anything to do with Assange's activities in a case that is, at best, tangentially related.

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

>I'd call her a spy.

a paid spy :-)

>She's guilty

Jesus Christ was also guilty :-) But he was a good guy.

Open up your blue eyes and see: much of what the US has done stinks. And probably it's completely legal :-)

I'm personally more concerned about the world getting the US habits of spying, intruding on privacy, infringing of the flow of information, breaking international laws and so on. And I really don't care who's guilty by the rules of a monster.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

a paid spy :-)

Well, yes. Msot spys are professionals.

I'm personally more concerned about the world getting the US habits of spying, intruding on privacy, infringing of the flow of information, breaking international laws and so on.

Yeah. That worries me as well. But what does that have to do with Swedish laws on sexual misconduct?

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

>sexual misconduct?

You can swear it happened, it was not staged? Are you sure?:-) Do you really want to know it for sure knowing full well that it will lead to the extradition to the US and death or life imprisonment? It is fair?
Isn't it too much for a sex without a condom?

Fuck the laws and fuck those who believe a word of biased prosecutors and paid spies not knowing from where the wind is blowing. :-) Fuck the laws that's a threat to good people. Fuck condoms too. Fuck long terms of imprisonment, for they make good ppl choose freedom some other way like Aaron Swartz did. Fuck them all. :-)
Peace.

Re:What about the UK?

[Xest]

"No it isn't. Warrants are issued for arrest for questioning all the time in the UK"

When this happens you're arrested under suspicion of something. Assange hasn't been arrested under suspicion of anything. Your comments about not lining up to Swedish justice are false, this myth about Sweden having different policing concepts has been dispelled many times over already, I don't know why anyone would keep parroting it.

"He can't be 'charged' in Sweden without then being brought before the court fairly quickly, which the prosecutor can't do because he won't return there."

Nonsense again. There's nothing to say that when someone has been charged they have to be brought before the court, just about every country on earth including Sweden can allow charges to remain outstanding pretty much indefinitely.

"Huh? He has served no time on remand or under a tagging order for the crime of bail jumping or anything similar. Under your theory, anyone on bail for more than a year could simply abscond - or commit some other crime with a maximum punishment under a year - if they felt like it and there could be no possible punishment. That wouldn't be much of a disincentive to bail jumping, would it? "

This makes no sense. If Sweden drops it's request it has the explicit implication that there was no case to answer. If there was no case to answer then he was under effective house arrest for over a year for no reason. The result would be that he skipped bail when he shouldn't have been under bail conditions in the first place because there turned out to be no case to answer. If Sweden were to drop the case then Assange would be deemed to be cleared as innocent all along. Your nonsense implies that you believe that being wanted for question = guilty of crime. That's not the case, and hopefully never will be.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

It seems highly unlikely that it was staged.

If it was staged, they would have staged a more serius crime
If they wanted to extradite Assange they would have extradited him from the UK. Extraditing him from Sweden requires the UK to consent.
If there was any possibility of death then neither the UK nor Sweden would extradite.

If he is guilty of sexual misconduct, then the victims are not getting justice. Is this fair? How sure are you that these woemn were spies?

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

>How sure are you that these women were spies?

Dead sure, ask yourself what a CIA agent would be doing in Assange's bed. :-)
Last I checked, they said it was confirmed it was a good consensual sex. You care he was condomless. I don't. And no one should.

I don't believe a single word they say. I don't trust them. I don't think they would stick with legal procedures. They'll just hide him in a cell for years or kill him.

Re:What about the UK?

[91degrees]

Dead sure, ask yourself what a CIA agent would be doing in Assange's bed. :-)

What makes you so sure she is a CIA agent? We don't even know who she is. The rumour is tat she worked for an organisation that was linked tothe CIA.

Last I checked, they said it was confirmed it was a good consensual sex.

Last I checked it wasn't.

Re:What about the UK?

[TrueRecord]

I am not so selfish and would not want to know what he was doing in his own bed by playing that game and risking his life with the brutalities that can happen to him like those that had happened to Manning.

>What makes you so sure

Like I said before, it's getting too customary. Lack of imaginations or freaky state mind they had in LEAs.

Hahahaha!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Hey, guys, isn't "prosecution" some sort of procedural step that we used to have to go through before getting to the indefinite detention and torture phase?

Re: Hahahaha!

[Corwyn_123]

Innocent until proven guilty went out the window years ago.

Re:Hahahaha!

[DarthVain]

Better than "definite" detention and torture? "Infinite"? :) mind is weird some days.

Re:Hahahaha!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given that 'definite' (while unhelpful for sufficiently large values) represents a legal limit on the duration of detention (subject to modification only under established due process, or at least a mockery of it that preserves its forms) while 'indefinite' is usually a polite way of saying "Until we feel like it, or you die, whichever comes first", yes, yes it is.

Re:Hahahaha!

[DarthVain]

I was thinking of the "sufficiently large values"...

"You can't hold me for an indefinite time!"
"Fine, we are holding you for 100 years, or until we let you off earlier..."

Re: Hahahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are still innocent until proven guilty. However, what is done to innocent people these days has changed drastically...

Re:Hahahaha!

[sgt_doom]

Thank you!

Translation

[overshoot]

So that means he would never appear before a judge. In fact, he might just disappear altogether.

Re:Translation

[runeghost]

Bingo. "Unlikely to be prosecuted" likely translates to "disappeared and tortured" if they ever get their hands on him.

Re:Translation

[sjwt]

Silly American your Government only pays to have the body created not disposed of, the contractor has the choice on that.. They do like to keep the Job secret and most will dispose of the evidence for free.

Re:Translation

[sgt_doom]

Naaaahhhh, overshoot, that never happens. Only when Boeing's subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan is involved. Oh, looky there, they want to extradite Assange to Gothenburg, where Jeppesen Systems AB, another of those Boeing Jeppesen "extreme rendition airlines" subsidiaries, just happens to be!

I know how they feel

[paiute]

I have all but concluded that I will probably not eat that piece of chocolate cake in the fridge.

That sweet chocolatty cake.

That dark moist delicious cake.

Re:I know how they feel

[AJH16]

The cake is a lie!

No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[wcrowe]

Just like all those people in GITMO. They haven't been charged with any crimes either.

Re:No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Warring against the US is not protected behavior. Puishing AKA Freedom of the Press, is.

Re:No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If you want to discuss the propriety of indefinite prisoner detention absent a declared war which, by definition, has no logical endpoint, that's fine. But a blanket comparison is not justified.

Re:No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Warring against the US is not protected behavior. Puishing AKA Freedom of the Press, is.

That's not even true for US citizens, let alone for foreigners. Also, many of the people at Gitmo were innocent. Some of them are still there, and the US doesn't know what to do with them.

Re:No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[fatphil]

If they're really "warring", then the Geneva Conventions provides them with many rights that they're not getting in gitmo.

Re:No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[sgt_doom]

Again, thank you, Good Citizen wcrowe!

A short time ago, Colin Powell's former military aide stated publicly (and I believe he actually signed a deposition to this fact) that both Cheney and Rumsfeld were aware that probably the majority of those held at Gitmo were not guilty of anything, but if they allowed them to go what would they have to show for their so-called War on Terrorism (which, any American above the retardate level realizes, is being waged against us by those Wall Streeters!).

Re:No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[mdielmann]

I would counter that with the U.S. Constitution.
Torture? Check.
No right to speedy trial (or even charges)? Check.
Indefinite detention? Check.
No freedom of speech? Not checked. Yet.

Oh look, all those activities are covered under one document! And if you use the excuse that it is because they attacked your country, please look back at the treatment that the Germans and Japanese received from most nations in WWII, coupled with the civilian deaths and atrocities committed by them. There is absolutely no justification for the violation of human rights being perpetrated by the US right now based on prior standards of how bad actors were treated. The only justification is "they are not one of us, therefore they are less than us", the same excuse used for atrocities since time immemorial. Well, I suppose you could also use the vengeance card, which has the exact same pedigree as the tribalism card.

I love hypocrisy in the morning...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard for me to trust ANYTHING coming out of the DOJ these days, especially when Washington is picking and choosing what laws it wants to obey. Even moreso when they're talking about a foreign national, well expat, and not even a US citizen.

Anyone live in DC? Does the smell of bullshit go away after a few weeks? Does it ever?

Re:I love hypocrisy in the morning...

[sgt_doom]

Now, now, just because Eric Holder made his big bucks and Covington and Burling, defending the corporations from hiring assassins to murder labor organizers and protesters in South America and Africa (Coca-Cola, Conoco, etc.) is no reason to doubt the Wall Street lackey!

Ask the people in Gitmo

[OzPeter]

Ask the people in Gitmo how their prosecution is proceeding. And while you are at it ask all the people grabbed by Special Rendition about their prosecution status.

The US has demonstrated that there is a huge difference between holding someone and prosecuting them. So while the Justice Department may correctly say that prosecution is unlikely to occur, that in no means ensures that someone won't suffer any consequences.

Re:Ask the people in Gitmo

[sgt_doom]

Well and beautifully stated, Good Citizen, OzPeter. Sweden has already been involved, colluding with the US government, in the extreme rendition of several innocent Arab-Swedes, who have since gone to court, been found innocent and financially remunerated for the crimes against them. Sweden has already established a record in this, just like the USA.

I'm sure Assange has been waiting for this

[sl4shd0rk]

I'm sure visiting the US is the only thing He's been able to think about since being holed up in that embassy. Bet he can't wait to experience that fresh Walmart smell and glue his brain to the red ticker on Fox News again. AND, since the US has such a world renown affection for whistleblowers, I'm sure he'd be perfectly safe. He should really take this deal.

Re:I'm sure Assange has been waiting for this

[NewWorldDan]

From a legal standpoint, no, the DOJ can't prosecute someone for publishing information. That was covered in the Pentagon Papers cases 40 years ago. But you have to remember the reason he's holed up in an embassy. The government can find an assortment of other bullshit reasons to prosecute you. Any minor discrepancies on your customs forms when you entered the country? Tax problems? Ever pirated an MP3 or movie? If they want to get you, they can and will find a reason. For all the crimes that Al Capone committed, he was convicted of tax evasion.

Riiiiiiight...

[meta-monkey]

"Welcome to my parlor," said the spider to the fly...

Why make him a martyr?

[Koreantoast]

The American government arresting him for Wikileaks would only solidify him as a martyr. Better to just let him get picked up in a third country and extradited by the Swedes on rape charges to try and discredit him.

Re:Why make him a martyr?

[Falconhell]

There are no rape charges, he is wanted for questioning, which already occurred whilst he was still in Sweden at the time the incidents occurred, then given permission to leave.
The questioning could occur at the Ecuador embassy anytime, Sweden chooses not to do so.

Re:Why make him a martyr?

[Luckyo]

It would also send a good message on "what we do with you fuckers who dare to tell our dirty secrets to the public".

Re:Why make him a martyr?

[sgt_doom]

You make a valid comment, but the super-rich working through America really don't care about whether someone is made the "martyr" or not, they are simply to powerful to care about such trifles! Go back and take a close look at the details and circumstances surrounding the Bobby Kennedy assassination in 1968, they were so powerful that time, that unlike the JFK and MLK murders, they were as open and careless as possible. You may believe or think the hegemons bother about worrying about the masses, but believe me, they don't!

Re:Why make him a martyr?

[Falconhell]

The Swedish already questioned and released the man, and continually state they want to question him, so what possible difference would it make where the questioning takes place? You dont need charges only an arrest warrant for extradition as clearly they already have such a warrant they used to get extradition so again what difference does it make?

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Step in to my parlour,
Said the Spider to the Fly...

Maher Arar was never "prosecuted". Extraordinary rendition is extra-judicial.

An ordinary deportation to UK - which has no republican constitution and is under Crown Justice - that would have him nicely "dealt".

Come into my parlor......

[Dega704]

Said the spider to the fly.

Re:Come into my parlor......

[Dega704]

Darn. Someone beat me to it.

Oh that's bad

[meta-monkey]

But he's guilty of the Worst Crime Possible in the United States: embarrassing politicians. They'll never just let him get away with it.

The threat of prosecution is at least a small comfort, because it sort of implies they might actually play by some rule book. But if prosecution is off the table, that leaves drone interdiction, indefinite detention, or torture as the only options.

If I were Mr. Assange, the words "no prosecution" would send a cold shiver down my spine.

Re:Oh that's bad

[Richy_T]

Don't forget suicide.

Re:Oh that's bad

[Richy_T]

Sorry, I mean "suicide"

Re:Oh that's bad

[meta-monkey]

Good point, I left that out. Yes, also "suicide" and single vehicle "accident."

Unlikely to be prosecuted, and ...

[DaveyJJ]

We have a free pony for him, too!

"unlikely"

[DoofusOfDeath]

In a land of a million laws, we're all criminals. The most any of us can hope for is that prosecution is "unlikely".

Where is he?

[Sir_Eptishous]

Is he still holed up in that 800 sq ft. Ecuadoran embassy...?
What does he do besides Yoga, Play WoW, Drink Wine and read Snowdens leaked docs?

I can see Assange in spaaaace...

[BringsApples]

...but why the FUCK would he go to America?

Re:I can see Assange in spaaaace...

[sgt_doom]

Because they US government has reserved the luxorious Gary Webb room for his use, or the extravagant John Kiriakou penthouse suite for his use, or the richly decorated Jeremy Hammond suite for his use, or the exquisitely detailed Aaron Swartz suite for his pleasure, etc., etc., etc.

what would the US have to do?

[globaljustin]

To communicate the fact that they *really* aren't going to prosecute Assange?

They can't **promise** because US leaders do not know what new information could be revealed. It would be irresponsible and unprofessional for US Attorneys to say otherwise.

They can ***theoretically*** be, you know, actually telling the truth.

What I want to know is, under what conditions would the US be able to communicate this to your satisfaction?

What can the US Attorneys do that wont elicit a "Oh...yeah...SURE...they won't prosecute just indefinite detention" sarcasm

If the answer is nothing, then you have to wonder how much value your comment adds...if you are going to say the same comment no matter what the policy ;)

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Joce640k]

Admiral Ackbar gives his opinion on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Shakrai]

Put your tinfoil hat away, he was freely walking the streets of the UK, until he exhausted his appeals in the Swedish case. Say what you will about Assange (I've said plenty), he's not a complete moron, the fact that he waited until he ran out of appeals spokes volumes about what he's really worried (Sweden) about. If he was worried about extradition to the United States why didn't he run the embassy sooner? Ditto for concerns about being charged in the UK.

Yeah right

[TWiTfan]

So come on for a visit, Julian. We promise we probably, maybe won't arrest you the second your plane lands.

Re:Yeah right

[Luckyo]

Indeed. It would take airplane minutes to get to the terminal after landing. That is a lot of seconds!

Shows Snowden's Mistake

[globaljustin]

Zimmerman?

Try Snowden.

Why are they saying Assange won't be prosecuted:

Because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.

If Snowden hadn't been duped by Glenn Greenwald he could have released this info in a way that would let him **be a free man**....because of the US laws for protecting journalists are the strongest in the world.

Freedom of Speech works if you do you homework on how the law is worded.

Snowden could have gotten this same deal but he fucked it all up b/c of his hubris or he was being blackmailed

Re:Shows Snowden's Mistake

[Luckyo]

Because word of law has significant impact on supralegal organizations and their actions...

Re:Shows Snowden's Mistake

[cavreader]

Snowden's transgressions have absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. He has admitted taking a job for the express purpose of stealing classified information. That is not a trumped up charge or part of any new law. If he had released only the information related to internal US surveillance programs he could have probably got a slap on the hand in return for not releasing the information on foreign intelligence programs. However with the unconditional support of glory seeking and book deal craving journalists he walked himself right into a text book definition of violating espionage laws which are over 80 years old and have noting to do with the Patriot Act or any other new law. Now he has no leverage and he will be under threat of arrest for the remainder of his life. Assange on the other hand didn't actually steal anything he just passed on the information. Not being a US citizen he cannot be charged with espionage. He did not enter into any binding agreements that restricted the dissemination of any of the data. The most he could ever have been charged with is receiving stolen property and even that charge is far fetched because the different press organizations do the same thing. And the US government is probably content that Assange has basically checked himself into prison. He is living in a small bedroom inside an embassy that could ask him to leave at any time. Could jail really be any worse?

Unlikely to prosecute, maybe....

[ilsaloving]

Likely to punish in several other indirect ways? Very much so.

We still have it

[overshoot]

It's the "trial" nonsense that we skip now.

It was ...

[PPH]

.... an unfortunate accident. He shot himself five times while cleaning his guns.

Re:It was ...

[Luckyo]

Had an unfortunate mishap during masturbation and hanged himself from his balls on the nearest lamppost. Completely accidental.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[TWiTfan]

If he or Edward Snowden ever land on American soil again, they'll be thrown in jail before the TSA even has a chance to harass them. If they can't get him them on espionage charges, they'll trump up some other charges (probably along the lines of rape, child molestation, puppy abuse, etc. to discredit them to boot), or just not even bother with charges at all and send them straight down to Cuba for indefinite detention.

They've committed the greatest crime of all, embarrassing the U.S. Government. And that carries a mandatory life sentence with no trial.

Told Ya

[the eric conspiracy]

I've said this several times on Slashdot (and have the moderation scars to prove it).

Assange will not be prosecuted by the US.

However I would be very surprised if he were ever to be granted a Visa if he applied. Which I really doubt he would ever do.

It also completely destroys the conspiracy theories that the Swedish extradition would be a short stopover on the way to the US. Aside from the EU laws that this would break, the US really has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from this sort of action.

Re:Told Ya

[game kid]

As bunches have already said here, the real issue is not whether the US prosecutes Assange, but whether the US (or any of its territories or non-annexed lackeys) punishes Assange with (or far more likely without) a Speedy And Public Trial.

Also, given that the US clearly has no respect for privacy or whistleblower protection, that statement by DoJ sounds less like a reassurance and much more like a less-than-implicit threat to other journalists. "What happened to Assange could happen to any of you TrueCrypting notepad-hugging bastards...report on Kimye like the good serfs you are and don't be that guy."

Re:Told Ya

[the eric conspiracy]

What do you expect the US to do? Kiss and make up? Issue him a Congressional Gold Medal?

Assange certainly has not behaved towards the US is a friendly manner. You are expecting the US to be nice towards him anyway?

Why shouldn't it go after Assange within the framework of the various sanctions and actions legally available to a soveriegn power? The guy is a jerk anyway and everyone knows it.

I fully expect the US to put Assange on its persona non gratia list and tell him to kiss off at every opportunity. And to tap his phone, computer and hire proxies to spy on his every move.

In fact I'd say that US intelligence agencies would be derelict of their duty if they didn't do this. You know for sure that Assange would love to get a hold of and publish another bunch of embarrassing revelations and will be working hard to do that if at all possible.

You would have to be completely stupid to not realize that and take actions to prevent it, with a vengeance.

Re:Told Ya

[the eric conspiracy]

I don't regard him as a positive figure. He seems to use people without any ethical concerns. His disregard for the people named in the documents he got from Manning was reckless, and his comments about that issue revealing. I really don't think he cares about anyone except himself. Why else would he court Ecuador and Hezbollah?

Former associates like Heather Brooke have had very harsh criticism of him. It's something to keep in mind.

Re:Told Ya

[sgt_doom]

Then, douchebagger, kindly explain to the rest of us poor slobs and dimwitted souls, why the bloody hell the Swedes can't question Assange (remember, douchey, Assange is wanted ONLY for questioning at this point) while he was residing in the UK under their supervision?

Charged with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not a US citizen. He never had any legal obligation to withhold the leaks. I suspect the DoJ realized that a trial would likely backfire, and possibly result in further damaging disclosures. Chalk it up to having hundreds of thousands of individuals with a security clearance, and move on.

broken record

[globaljustin]

so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?

you want to see Assange, in NYC attending galas, at Harvard lecturing, in DC testifying (freely) before a Senate Judiciary hearing on privacy in the 21st Century...you want that, right? you would have to see it happen?

otherwise, you don't believe a single word the Obama administration says?

Am I accurately representing your position?

Re:broken record

[geminidomino]

Not the OP, but...

so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy

An extremely reasonable position to hold, even before Wikileaks/Snowden.

that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?

Grant him complete amnesty, publicly.

Re:broken record

[Anonymous Coward]

You're accurately representing my position, at any rate. They are my government, and therefore not to be trusted, regardless of whether they are doing things I approve of, or disapprove of.

Re:broken record

[hairyfeet]

They could sign a document telling Sweden they will NOT under any circumstances try to have him brought to the US, as well as to pressure Sweden to sign the document the Ecuadorians produced saying they agree not to ship him to another country.

But of course Nobama "Yes we can (but I won't)" will NEVER in a million years do that because THIS IS A LIE. Somebody high up has gotten tired of not being able to give Assange a rendition ride and they know that short of hitting the embassy and insuring that no US ambassador will EVER be safe again there is not a damned thing they can do so they made a few calls to get their lapdogs in the media (Just FYI but the post was the one calling for Assange's head the loudest, they are owned by the gov) to try to lure him out.

I would strongly suggest you watch this video and learn what you are REALLY up against. BTW please keep in mind that this video was made in 07 so thanks to "Yes I can (but I won't)" embracing every nasty play by Dubya and cooking up a few of his own things are WORSE NOW. Notice how many things we have in common with countries that suddenly had a complete loss of freedom like Germany and the USSR? Its not a slope, its a plunge.

Re:broken record

[lister king of smeg]

so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?

you want to see Assange, in NYC attending galas, at Harvard lecturing, in DC testifying (freely) before a Senate Judiciary hearing on privacy in the 21st Century...you want that, right? you would have to see it happen?

otherwise, you don't believe a single word the Obama administration says?

Am I accurately representing your position?

Well I would of added they could burn the Utah datacenter to ash dismantle the NSA prosecute and convict everyone involved in the massive wiretapping of the whole planet repeal the patriot act shut down fica court and bar the judges involved form ever becoming a judge at any level ever again shutdown gitmo and then finally they themselves resign then I might believe them.

Re:broken record

[lister king of smeg]

Sounds like a rather zero tolerance'ish approach dude.

And how could you believe anything they say otherwise? If those responsible are left in there position what is to stop them form continuing? If the datacenters and tapping equipment are still in place how can you know that they are not in use? If the law the made this possible are still in effect what is to stop them from using them? If their Cuban Gulag is still in place then what is to stop them from disappearing people that are critical of them, there? If the secret courts that rubber stamped these warrants are left in place they will go there for their rubber stamp. If the politicians and administration that protected these programs and kept it going while knowing the abuses and unethical actions being committed against the people their constituents after campaigning to end these types of acts are still in power how can you trust them not to do so again?

The answer is that you may never trust them again and as such one must adopt a zero tolerance policy or they will take it as approval.

Re:broken record

[geminidomino]

You're right. I did choose the wrong word. I did, in fact, mean "immunity." Thank you.

Except you missed one large set of people who are often granted immunity: people offering testimony or evidence against bigger offenders. It's hardly a stretch to fit him into that pigeonhole.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[FriendlyLurker]

Freely walking the streets of the UK - WITH A TRACKING ANKLE DEVICE. Not to mention that he would be held in solitary the moment he lands in Sweden + easier to extradite him from Sweden to the US. Let me preempt those that still think it would be easier to extradite from the UK: The claim: "easier from the UK than Sweden" (FALSE).

Very sad that someone can be granted political asylum and *still* Sweden refuses to do a simple interview. Speaks volumes for the real intent of Sweden (hint: nothing to do with justice, all about locking people away for embarrassing those in power and bringing some long needed transparency into the public realm.)

No charges, just questioning

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no charges to drop in Sweden. It is just questioning he is wanted for. Don't make up stuff. There is enough disinformation as it is.

Words say so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read it again. From TFA:
"The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials. The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents." (emphasis mine)

And there's the rub. Even if we take this as sincere, there are plenty of other crimes than simply PUBLISHING the information that the government could choose to prosecute. Conspiracy to commit espionage comes to mind (e.g. inducement of Manning to gather documents). Conspiracy to violate the CFAA (don't laugh - Aaron Swartz was threatened with 10 years on a felony for "using the computer wrong.") Aiding enemies of the US, supporting terrorism, all KINDS of potential charges come to mind.

Oh, and by the way - they won't prosecute Assange on these grounds because they'd also have to prosecute journalists? This administration has actively declared war on the First Amendment and journalists who oppose them. What's to say they WON'T prosecute journalists?

Re:Words say so much.

[sgt_doom]

Very well stated, and thanks, Good Citizen anon.

which supralegal?

[globaljustin]

I don't understand what supralegal organization to which you refer:

is it Wikileaks? the military/industrial complex? "Obama"?

Re:which supralegal?

[Luckyo]

The organizations that handled the whole "extraordinary rendition" for example. As well as various alphabet-soup agencies that can present complex legal arguments in front of kangaroo courts to explain in great detail why they don't have to care about particular laws.

Re:It's a trap!

[geogob]

Correction:

It's all but not a trap.

Om nom nom nom!

[DarthVain]

Also I am pretty sure Cookie Monster would be a billionaire should he ever decided to sue the Internets on infringement on his copyrighted saying...

MOD PARENT UP

[JigJag]

currently at +4 Interesting, should be +2500 Insighful

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[whoever57]

Embarassed the powers that be... They got a hardon for him now.

Question: how can NSA employees travel outside the USA without fear of being arrested for espionage? What did Assange do that the NSA does not do? Spying on the communications of national leaders -- that's not a criminal offense in, for example, Germany?

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Shakrai]

Not to mention that he would be held in solitary the moment he lands in Sweden

He hasn't even been charged in Sweden, they simply want to talk to him about the case in question. I don't know much about the Swedish justice system, but I find it hard to believe that a Social Democracy throws people in solitary before formal charges have been brought. The most serious reading of the allegations against him wouldn't get him remanded without bail in the United States (at least before he demonstrated himself to be a flight risk), with our supposedly draconian justice system, let alone tossed into solitary. Are you seriously claiming that the Social Nirvana that is Sweden treats defendants worse than the United States?

Lost in all of this are his alleged victims, whom are supposed to actually receive some measure of justice. Their allegations may be completely bogus, totally legitimate, or lie somewhere in between, we'll never know as long as he keeps ducking the judicial system.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything they'll get him with Russian Polonium, just to make it confusing.

'All but'

[ThatsNotPudding]

With this supra-legal coven, 'all but' can easily mean a drone, a Chavez Special, or Gitmo.

Re:bullshit i'm smoking dispensary weed now

[Shakrai]

You can **board airlines** with medicinal marijuana with your proof...the TSA doesn't bother you for small ammounts

Huh? Their own webpage suggests otherwise. It does say that they don't specifically look for it (nor should they), but will refer the matter to law enforcement. "*Screening procedures are governed by federal law and designed to detect threats to aviation security. TSA officers do not search for marijuana or other drugs; however, if an item is found that may violate federal law during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to law enforcement. Whether or not marijuana is considered medical marijuana federal law provides no basis to treat medical marijuana differently than non-medical marijuana."

Local LEOs might let you get away with it in a state with legalized and/or medical pot, but I personally wouldn't be brave enough to test that theory.

There is thing thing called "a phone".

[Anonymous Coward]

They exist in the UK AND in Sweden.

You can use them to ask people you don't have in front of you questions.

A modern miracle.

PS as to the alleged victims you're fakely so concerned about, NEITHER OF THEM say they were raped.

Moreover, they have withdrawn their complaints when the prosecutor told them to sign a declaration of an accusation of rape.

But the prosecutor knew better than these women if they were raped.

So, apparently, do you.

Re:There is thing thing called "a phone".

[Rei]

PS as to the alleged victims you're fakely so concerned about, NEITHER OF THEM say they were raped.

There are two women in question here - AA and SW. AA did *not* say she was raped. She has on multiple occasions denied being raped. She *has* said she was the victim of sex crimes. Guess what? There are no rape charges concerning AA. The charges concerning AA are 1x unlawful sexual coersion and 2x molestation. The only rape charge concerns SW.

SW has *never* denied being raped, and *has* said she was raped. She told the police:

Friday 20 August 2010 I, inspector Linda Wassgren was temporarily on duty in the reception at Klara Närpo, normally I am on duty outside at the
same station. At around 14:00 same day two women came into the station and talk and get some advice on two earlier events and they were a little insecure on how to proceed. The crime rape was mentioned.

She told AA:

Then he told me that Julian hade been accused of raping that young woman, [SW]. And that [DB] had spoken with [AA], and that [SW] had spoken with [DB]. And that [AA] was furious about what [SW] had told her — that for one reason or another, she believed what [SW] had said and that they were going to meet.

She told her ex boyfriend:

[SB] related that he had a relationship with [SW] for two and a half years. They had lived together during the last year of the relationship. Seth related that it was very important for [SW] that they use a condom, partly to prevent infection but also to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

[SB] said the issue of infection was crucial for [SW] and that, before they had sex the first time, they had both got tested for disease and shown each other the results. They did not have sex without a condom on a single occasion during their two and a half years together. That was completely unthinkable for [SW]. [SB] said that such was their agreement. He said that, as far as he knew, [SW] had never had sex with anyone without using a condom.

[SB] related that he learned about what had happened when [SW] sent an SMS message to him, asking if she could telephone him. He was somewhat baffled, because they had not been in contact with each other for several months. When [SW] called, she immediately asked what [SB] thought of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. He answered that WikiLeaks seemed positive.

Then [SW] said that she had been raped by Julian Assange, in that he had initiated unprotected sex with her while she lay sleeping. [SW] said that she had asked Assange if he was wearing anything and that Assange had replied, “Yes, you.”

The interviewer asked [SB] how [SW] had reacted to that. [SB] said that [SW] had related that she was shocked and did not know what to do. [SB] said that, given [SW]’s definite views on the use of condoms during sex, he could imagine that she was very shocked and afraid. He knows how important it is to [SW] that a condom is used when she has sex.

[SW] has told [SB] that she could not understand how a representative for WikiLeaks, which does so much good, could be so lacking in respect for another human being.

I could keep going if you' like.

Moreover, they have withdrawn their complaints when the prosecutor told them to sign a declaration of an accusation of rape.

First off, you're distorting the distortion of the distortion. The "statement" only concerns SW. It wasn't a "statement of rape"; it was concerning a police report representing that her words were accurately represented in the report (which isn't even a legal requirement in Sweden). Third, it wasn't even about signing. But, most critically, here's what it actuall

Re:There is thing thing called "a phone".

[FriendlyLurker]

The women DO deserve their day. So tell us why Sweden is stalling and not doing an interview to move this case forward? I mean they will interview a accused murderer in Serbia but they will not interview Assange!? That clearly shows that Sweden prosecution does not have the girls interest at heart. Also please explain why the girls texted a message, paraphrased in English "that we have to figure out a good plan of revenge." . This is in addition to one of the girls previous publication of the guide "Seven steps for revenge against an unfaithful lover". You have to admit, that does not put the story you have highlighted in a good light. I think everyone involved wants this to get to trial so these little details can be fleshed out in court, but Sweden is stalling by not performing a simple interview. Political Asylum is not given lightly, so the ball really is in Swedens court.

So, in other words...

[EmagGeek]

...it has NOT CONCLUDED that it will not charge Julian Assange.

i would quote you to prove my point

[globaljustin]

you do understand that what you quoted supports what I said

if it is legal in the state where you depart from, and you are dumb enough to just have it laying out so they find it, they will consult local law enforcement, who go by the laws of the state, making it legal

the worst that would happen is you'd have it confescated...**maybe** still catch your flight even

your quote proves what I said true!

not that you trust me or anything, but the fact is I know several people who fly with their medicine

Re:i would quote you to prove my point

[Shakrai]

you do understand that what you quoted supports what I said

"TSA officers do not search for marijuana or other drugs; however, if an item is found that may violate federal law during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to law enforcement. Whether or not marijuana is considered medical marijuana federal law provides no basis to treat medical marijuana differently than non-medical marijuana."

You're rolling the dice every single time you pass through a TSA checkpoint with marijuana, unless the DEA rescheduled it while I wasn't looking, or Congress managed to do something useful, both of which I seriously doubt. :)

I don't know what your underlying aliment is, but I would highly recommend that you find an alternative to flying with marijuana on your person. Have a friend procure some at the other end of the trip, take alternate transportation, or just stay at home. That's just my two cents, perhaps you're braver than I am, personally I can think of a million things I'd rather do than risk my liberty and/or become a cause celebre. It sucks, and I'd really like to see the law changed, but until that happens it's best to keep your head down.

'trust'

[globaljustin]

so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy

An extremely reasonable position to hold, even before Wikileaks/Snowden.

by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?

what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?

also, and this is important, you **must** be able to give some example of some government that would be trustworthy....otherwise this is just meaningless abstracts...

***is it possible for you to trust any government?***

full disclosure:
i don't trust the government either! but I have specific reasons that are not related to the Obama administration and I acknowledge the existence of the Social Contract...

***I don't trust humans in power systems who do not have accountability***

accountability & openness are what elicit trust in the government for me

Re:'trust'

[HiThere]

FWIW, accountability is much more important than openness. Openness is only important because there is no other way to even measure what degree of accountability is present.

Re:'trust'

[geminidomino]

by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?

Yes.

what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?

Nothing, and it's a stupid question in the first place. Why would it be on one man to overcome the well-deserved reputation for duplicity and self-service of the entire government? It might, theoretically, be possible for Obama to do something that will make me trust him, but since that "something" is making a public apology and stepping down -- at a minimum -- I won't be holding my breath.

***I don't trust humans in power systems who do not have accountability***

Rather than asking slanted questions, it might be more productive to consider the possibility that others can reach the same conclusions.

Re:'trust'

[geminidomino]

Which suggests that accountability may be more important, but openness is more fundamental (since it's a necessary precondition for accountability).

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[davester666]

They work for somebody that owns a lot of guns.

except they refer you to **local law enforcement**

[globaljustin]

you keep quoting it like it will say something different...

if you are ***DUMB ENOUGH*** to leave it laying out, when you **know** by **their own admission** they aren't priortizing it....

**IF** that happens...

they tell you, in the thing you've quoted to me twice now, that they refer you to LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

they don't call the fucking DEA on you for a few joints!

get it in your head...this is like speeding law enforcement...it's not black & white

**everyone speeds when they drive** in some small towns 5 MPH over the posted limit is an automatic ticket...in other places, you can push it closer to 10 MPH...

they dont call the fucking DEA...do you understand?

Local law enforcement will obey the *local laws* which means you are fine if it is legal in your departure state!

you can say "it's still not the wisest move" but that doesn't disprove my point

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[d34thm0nk3y]

If he or Edward Snowden ever land on American soil again, they'll be thrown in jail before the TSA even has a chance to harass them.

These days you don't even need to land...

Re:except they refer you to **local law enforcemen

[Shakrai]

You need to get a better supplier, weed is supposed to make you mellow....

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[FriendlyLurker]

I find it hard to believe that a Social Democracy throws people in solitary before formal charges have been brought.... Are you seriously claiming that the Social Nirvana that is Sweden treats defendants worse than the United States?

Well prepare to be shocked by Swedens draconian system then, as it has already happened. We have well documented examples of people being held in solitary FOR MONTHS without any charge. One of the more high profile examples was Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm, just another who pissed off the powers that be.:

"concern surrounds the Swedish detention facility, where Mr Assange would be held incommunicado upon arrival. Similar treatment can be seen in the case of Gottfrid Svartholm, founder of The Pirate Bay, who was held in solitary confinement for months without being officially charged."

Lost in all of this are his alleged victims, whom are supposed to actually receive some measure of justice. Their allegations may be completely bogus, totally legitimate, or lie somewhere in between, we'll never know as long as he keeps ducking the judicial system.

Interesting you should mention them - because if Sweden actually cared about justice for the girls they would hold an interview as they have done for murderers, see "Assange is willing to return to Sweden but prosecutors can also question him in the UK.". Then Sweden could let the girls have some closure by pressing charges, or dropping them as looks increasingly likely. The plot thickens by the month.

For someone who proposes to have spoken a lot about this case you seem to be missing a lot of high level well known and confirmable facts. Things that make one go Hmmm?

Three Biggest Lies

[FuzzNugget]

The cheque is in the mail
Of course I'm on the pill
We won't prosecute Assange

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Rei]

Trumped up charges? Why thank you, Amazing Kreshkin, for your amazing psychic judicial insights! Never mind that of the three investigating officers, two (Gehlen, Wassgren) wanted him charged for 2x counts of rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, and 2x molestation, while the third (Krans) felt it should be 1x, 1x, 2x; that the initial prosecutor (Finne) started investigating for 2x, 1x, 2x, then changed the investigation to 0x, 1x, 2x; that an appeal to a judicial review board by the women's legal rep (Claes Borgström) ruled her in error and restored the investigation for 2x, 1x, 2x ;that the second prosecutor (Ny) investigated, and later anklagad (charged) in a court of law for 2x, 1x, 2x; that a judge approved the warrant for 2x, 1x, 2x; that Assange appealed and the Svea Court of Appeals held a full court hearing, with testimony from Assange's attorneys and a review of all the evidence, and found probable cause that Assange committed 1x, 1x, 2x; that he lost his appeal to the Swedish Supreme Court; that he then switched to appealing to the British lower court, alleging flaws in the Swedish process and malicious prosecution, and lost on all counts; then appealed to the high court and lost there on all counts; then appealed to the British Supreme Court and lost there too on all counts.

No no - who cares what everyone who's actually involved in the case has to say, we've got TWiTfan here to tell us what's what! You put those uppity women in their place, how DARE they get a day in court. Don't they know that Assange is just Too Important to deem to stand trial for trivial things like prying a girl's legs open to force sex and F*ing a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to his preferred form of sex? Pish, don't they know that Assange is just the Awesomest Aweome that ever did Awesome? Lie back and take it, girls, it's for the greater good!

Oh, by the way, TWiTfan, I've found some great property listings in Steubenville if you're interested.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Rei]

Nobody has ever or will ever in the history of Sweden been "charged" for anything, for the simple reason that the Swedish judicial system doesn't use English terms. This may sound semantics, but it's actually the key point. There are two terms of relevance in the swedish system: "anklagad" and "åtalad". Look them up in a handful of Swedish dictionaries (there's dozens out there); you'll find that both can be translated "accused, charged, or indicted".

In a legal process, being anklagad comes first. The prosecutor raises this stage and must have grounds for probable cause. At this point warrants can be issued for the person's arrest. The person also has the right to appeal being anklagad and have a full court hearing reviewing the evidence (and even to appeal that court ruling).

The only thing that being anklagad doesn't do is lead to a trial. This is what being åtalad does. In fact, once åtalad, you *must* be tried within a fixed period of time. As a standard, there is a questioning immediately before being åtalad.

So while people can play word games, probably the most analagous terms would be "charged" for anklagad and "indicted" for åtalad.

Assange has been anklagad but not åtalad. Nor can he be åtalad, because he refuses to hand himself over and he cannot be tried in absentia. So to use "he hasn't been charged!" as a defense of him is simply deceptive.

And, FYI, here's the sworn-in-court written statement of the Swedish prosecutor:

Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

Don't be surprised that Assange pulls stuff like this, the guy is a BS artist about almost everything in his life. Check out the 10 different stories he's told about why his hair is white, for example. My favorite is that it's due to gamma radiation from a nuclear reactor he built as a child.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[TWiTfan]

Yep, and I remember when a NY prosecutor said he had a *rock solid* case against Dominique Strauss Kahn, and then suddenly decided that the whole case was bogus exactly three days after Kahn's successor at the IMF was sworn in.

But your naivete is cute.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Curate]

If the USA says they won't prosecute him, I believe it. Note that the USA did not bother to prosecute Osama Bin Laden.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[TrueRecord]

Sure, they are not going to prosecute him. They'll just kill him.

Two objections

[Archtech]

1. As far as I know, the DoJ hasn't brought legal proceedings against any of the people detained at Guantanamo.

2. The President has publicly claimed (and regularly exercises) the right to order anyone, anywhere, to be killed any time he chooses. Just because he deems it fit.

So I wouldn't put too much store in anything the DoJ says. Because, you know, they don't have the final say.

Re:Two objections

[sixsixtysix]

On what grounds could they be tried, anyways? If we start trying foreigners for violating our laws, then any country can do the same.

Re:Two objections

[sixsixtysix]

*obviously referring to outside our jurisdiction (i.e. borders)

This just in...

[sixsixtysix]

This just in... foreigners not bound to the United States' laws.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[sgt_doom]

Well articulated, Good Citizen!

And for any commenters are /. who still are clueless, here is an excellent breakdown by the Nordic News Network:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

The item they didn't mention, since they are not doing any factual supposition as I do, is that every player in Sweden involved with attempting to extradite Assange is financially involved/linked to the Swedish media mogul family (the Rupert Murdochs of Sweden), the Bonnier family.

Well, yes he can.....

[sgt_doom]

...because under the rules and regulations of the European Union, that was not a valid warrent for his arrest to begin with.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Re:Extradition

[sgt_doom]

They want him for questioning, he has yet to be charged with anything.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[Shakrai]

I vaugely recall arguing with you in the past, but you're my new friend with this post. I wish Assange's defenders here would stop and ask themselves what their opinion of this matter would be if the accused's name was "Smith" instead of "Assange". Something tells me the rightous indigination would be replaced with a range of emotion somewhere between "Hang the rapist!" and "Let justice run its course", but of course it's Assange, and he's a hero of the internet community. He's essentially no different than the star athlete that gets a pass for the very same crime from soceity at large, because, gosh, our hero couldn't have done these horrible things....

Moot point I suppose. I've been around the block enough times to know that justice is rarely obtained once the media feeding frenzy begins, for neither the accused nor victim. :(

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[HiThere]

It doesn't invalidate every rape case, but it makes the public statements of every prosecutor suspect.

And, FWIW, from what I remember of the early coverage this looks an awful lot like a subsidised attack. There was that web page posted by one of his accusers about how to get even with a guy you didn't like, e.g. Not proof, of course, but definitely enough to make me suspicious.

Then there's the bit of "We just want you to testify, but we won't take phone testimony.", even though they have done so in other cases.

what you say doesn't matter

[globaljustin]

what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?

Nothing, and it's a stupid question in the first place.

so you're against **whatever the government does** and the only thing Obama could do personally is step down.

who would take his place? how would we choose? don't answer it's a rhetorical question to show the fallacy of your whole position

look, your opinions dont matter because they are the ***same*** no matter what

you will always say the same thing...you won't describe details about under what conditions you would change, unless of course Obama steps down

that means, for all practical purposes, I could have read your comment or *not* read it and i would know the same ammount of information...

kind makes you a 'Schrodinger Commentor' doesn't it?

Re:what you say doesn't matter

[geminidomino]

Nice job clipping out any relevant context, setting up a bunch of strawmen, and basically showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest and/or functionally illiterate. Kind of makes you look like a tool, doesn't it?

I don't know what your game is, but I don't care either.

via wikileaks

[globaljustin]

what I'm saying is Snowden could have...ya know...released the info anonymously via wikileaks

because that's exactly why it exists

the info would get out and he'd be walking around banging his Russian "girlfriend"

Re:via wikileaks

[cavreader]

Now here is the main problem I have. If the NSA is actually capable of doing all they are accused of why would Wikileaks offer any barrier to them finding out where the data came from?

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[FriendlyLurker]

Gottfrid Svartholm (amongst others) was held in solitary for months, without charge, despite the ruling of Stockholm's Tingsr. So it is hardly a red herring, we have a clear example of solitary being used without charge. If you dispute this or wish to claim you would have to prove beyond doubt that they cannot apply the same treatment to Assange, and empty promises will not suffice.

I read your other comment. The facts we have on hand don't support it. If we look at what Swedens justice system has done in similar cases we see that they are fully capable and willing to interview suspected murderers in Serbia, so they are perfectly capable of interviewing a "minor rape" accusation in London if they really cared about resolving the case for the girls. Claiming it is a translation issue ignores this fact and is indeed just a red herring, but I am sure you know that already.

One google and we see that Borgström was fired by Wilén, and he even said so himself so I am not sure what lie your referring to. Also you provide no evidence that there WAS DNA found - all reports show that there was none found and the forensics on the condom show that it was cut with a knife/scissors. If your claiming all these reports are lies you had better come up with some references.

It is just a matter of weighing up the facts we have on hand and calling out the bullshit when we see it, and this case reeks to high heaven from the moment Marianne Ny reopened the case after it had been dropped. You may very well be right about the charges not being dropped and that the case is in a holding pattern despite the enormous damage it is doing to Swedens reputation and credibility as each month passes. Too many powerful vested interests here.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[FriendlyLurker]

Sigh. *again*. You have not addressed the key question yet you go on and on about caring for these women. The women DO deserve their day I think nobody disagrease. So let me repeat: tell us why Sweden is stalling and not doing an interview to move this case forward? They will interview a accused murderer in Serbia but they will not interview Assange. That clearly shows that Sweden prosecution does not have the girls interest at heart. I think everyone involved wants this to get to trial so these little details can be fleshed out in court, but Sweden is stalling by not performing a simple interview. Political Asylum is not given lightly, so the ball really is in Swedens court.

Re:Prosecuted? Maybe not.

[FriendlyLurker]

At this point looking at your posts on this subject, you are glossing over major key points and are playing word games. Again: You have not addressed the key question yet you go on and on about caring for these women. The women DO deserve their day I think nobody disagrease. So let me repeat: tell us why Sweden is stalling and not doing an interview to move this case forward? They will interview a accused murderer in Serbia but they will not interview Assange. That clearly shows that Sweden prosecution does not have the girls interest at heart. I think everyone involved wants this to get to trial so these little details can be fleshed out in court, but Sweden is stalling by not performing a simple interview. Political Asylum is not given lightly, so the ball really is in Swedens court.

Subpoena to appear....

[metaforest]

... does not mean 'charged with a crime.' It works the same way in the US. What it means is, that the Prosecutor has asked a judge to authorize compelling a person-of-interest to be questioned regarding a crime. Heck, in the US it could be a known witness to a crime, or even a traffic accident, who will not be prosecuted for anything, unless they willfully obstruct -- by evading the court order to appear.

This ordering of Assange to appear to answer questions is not unusual, but what is unusual is using an international warrant to compel someone who has not been charged with a crime to appear for questioning.... potential suspect or not. (IANAL)

catharsis only

[globaljustin]

ok I get it...another "do unrealistic, unworkable thing then resign" comment...I understand it is cathartic to type comments like yours but under actual scrutiny of logic it's all just hot air...you're venting...good for you...but don't think your ideas are anything that would work in the real world...

why?

so what law enforcement and national defense are we allowed to do with telecommunications? internet, SMS, phone records, it's all private

so we need to get a warrant, right?

what if the government wants to get a warrant to spy on someone secretly for an Internal Investigations investigation?

does the CIA out in the field need to get permission to collect surveillance on, say, Assad?

I'd like an answer to my questions, because in the real world where policy gets enacted your ideas would not work and these questions illustrate why.