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.]

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

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."

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?

[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.

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?

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.

No doubt, they are telling the truth.

[wcrowe]

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

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: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.)

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.