Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
[You know what goes here.]
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
Obama/DoJ also promised they wouldn't go after Cannabis dispensaries and growers in medical states but that was a lie.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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?
So that means he would never appear before a judge. In fact, he might just disappear altogether.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Just like all those people in GITMO. They haven't been charged with any crimes either.
Proverbs 21:19
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".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
We have a free pony for him, too!
DaveyJJ
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 ;)
Thank you Dave Raggett
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
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?
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.
You know when it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theatre? When it's on fire.
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:
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.
You know when it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theatre? When it's on fire.
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.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
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:
She told AA:
She told her ex boyfriend:
I could keep going if you' like.
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
You know when it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theatre? When it's on fire.