Slashdot Mirror
US Prepares Charges To Seek Arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: U.S. authorities have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, U.S. officials familiar with the matter tell CNN. The Justice Department investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks dates to at least 2010, when the site first gained wide attention for posting thousands of files stolen by the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst now known as Chelsea Manning. Prosecutors have struggled with whether the First Amendment precluded the prosecution of Assange, but now believe they have found a way to move forward. During President Barack Obama's administration, Attorney General Eric Holder and officials at the Justice Department determined it would be difficult to bring charges against Assange because WikiLeaks wasn't alone in publishing documents stolen by Manning. Several newspapers, including The New York Times, did as well. The investigation continued, but any possible charges were put on hold, according to U.S. officials involved in the process then.
The U.S. view of WikiLeaks and Assange began to change after investigators found what they believe was proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority." "We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail." Meanwhile, Assange's lawyer said they have "had no communication with the Department of Justice."
The U.S. view of WikiLeaks and Assange began to change after investigators found what they believe was proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority." "We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail." Meanwhile, Assange's lawyer said they have "had no communication with the Department of Justice."
Trump, WTF are you doing?!!!
but rather to stop the world from hearing inconvenient truths and all the wrongs the U.S. is doing. Making an example out of Assange won't help anything though, there will just be someone else stepping up. Assange is not the problem, you are.
Not being the NY Times, or rather, not being a part of the elite propaganda cartel. Damn the Constitution....full prosecution speed ahead.
Seriously, and this is why I don't give a fuck about any laws anymore. Laws are there for you, not the elites. And the worst crime you can do in America, is to reveal the crimes of the elites to the masses.
MAGA, hope you're getting why you wanted!!!cause you know the grifters are!!!
The problem is not Trump. It is out of control spy agencies that do whatever, whenever, and however. They don't like competition. If this happens then we get his poison pill.
As he's not going to leave that embassy that he's been living in for the last few years willingly unless he's forced out. And that doesn't seem like that's going to happen anytime soon. So unless President Von Clownstick cuts some sort of "amazing" deal with Ecuador that makes it worth their while to kick him out, this is nothing but a stunt by the Justice Department that doesn't mean anything.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Careful there. Its legally risky to openly condone assassination that clearly. You need to be more careful in you wording. Something like "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know"
We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail (regardless of guilt).
Seriously, he's spent so long insisting that there was some U.S. plan to arrest him through Sweden by way of Britain and probably a layover in Botswana. Now, there actually is a U.S. plan to arrest him. This finally means his rabid supporters can actually point to something real when insisting that Julian's sexual misconduct was completely fabricated and that he only has sex with undercover (wink wink) operatives working for the CIA.
At no time has Assange had a US security clearance. He has no legal obligation to not publish info others have provided. Those others (Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, etc) are legally liable for leaking information they were legally obligated to protect. Not Assange.
The US would have to prove that Assange directed the leakers to collect and transfer the leaked information to him. Other than this article I haven't seen any indication of such a level of control or oversight by Assange on his sources. They have chosen to commit espionage and have voluntarily chosen WikiLeaks. This article brings forth a claim of Bradly being directed by WikiLeaks but I have not seen that before not even during Bradley's trial and considering CNN's current reputation for creating "news" I doubt this unsubstantiated claim. So I'm having a hard time seeing how they charge him with anything that could stick.
As to the Clinton campaign emails, last I heard WikiLeaks still insists they were provided by a disgruntled DNC staffer, not the Russians. But even if from the Russians, WikiLeaks did nothing illegal. They simply published information they had been provided, regardless of the source. They did not steal the data.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
He's been hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy's broom cupboard for the last 4.5 years for no reason, until now? Bwahahahaha!
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
"We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail"
Hello Secret US various services, you actually broke the law(s), performed illegal operations and basically fucked up your internal security.
Do you have members you would like to nominate for internment or...?
Guess the trumped up rape charges didn't pan out
This was never a first amendment issue. It was an espionage vs whistle blower issue.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm wondering how Snowden got into the mix here. I thought Greenwald and company were the conduit for snowden
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Anybody have the exact quote from Sessions?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority."
"We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail."
I'm very suspicious when the news media writes their own sentence and then quotes a single word from someone. Was Sessions talking specifically about Assange, or about leakers? Assange is not a leaker, he's a publisher of the things leakers leak. It's perfectly reasonable for the Justice Department to go after people who are entrusted with US government secrets who then leak them.
Without the full question and answer, then it looks like Sessions could have just as easily said "we're going after leakers" and then CNN says "Assange is a leaker, therefore Sessions is going to arrest Assange," despite Sessions not saying or meaning that.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Wikileak published documents showing massive corruption in the democratic party. The big news organizations did not publish those leaks, they told their listeners it was illegal to even view them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You just go in and arrest him at the embassy. I mean - he's in London, we just go in and take him.
Wait, did you say that the Ecuadorian Embassy is actually sovereign land and to send a police or military force in to arrest and remove him would be an act of war? Well, you don't need to worry about that. We've just proven, by way of 59 cruise missiles, that even sovereign nations who do bad things are no barrier to the will (or should I say whim) of the United States. And they don't even have to go in by hand - I think a targeted drone strike would have a limited number of civilian casualties. And London doesn't have any room to complain, since they were perfectly fine with all the drone strikes in middle eastern countries where there were known criminals and we (usually) limited the civilian casualties.
I don't see how this is going to be difficult - the US just needs to apply traditional tactics used on physical terrorists to the new crop of information terrorists.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Snicker.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
What am I missing here? I thought Assange isn't a US citizen. He also wasn't on US soil when he received, nor when he published the material. How is the US juridical system involved, then?
It almost worked with Ronnie Reagan
If you think John Hinckley, Jr. was acting out of a sense of patriotism, then you're the fucking idiot. Hinckley was a batshit-crazy "Taxi Driver" wannabe who was trying to impress the object of his obsession, Jodie Foster. He considered killing Jimmy Carter, then switched to Edward Kennedy, before finally settling on Reagan.
It's interesting, because Trump had come out in favor of Asange during the election last year, and the only source of this information so far is CNN. Sessions did not say arresting Asange is a priority, he actually said:
“We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks. This is a matter that’s gone beyond anything I’m aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious.” He added: “So yes, it is a priority. We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.”
You're absolutely right: this is about covering up past, present, and future abuses of power. But I think there's a bigger lesson here, and most of slashdot isn't going to like it:
The government doesn't work for you, no matter how loud they shout it.
To shut the liberal mainstream media the hell up about the "hacked election."
All they have to do for him to stay locked up in the embassy for the rest of his life, is to hold this threat of prosecution over him - they don't even need to actually prosecute him for anything.
That's the goal here. I'm sure they are perfectly happy with this.
I don't understand what authority the US has to arrest a foreign national, in a foreign embassy, on foreign soil.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It's been a decade since I visit Slashdot. Since when were posts allowed to make violent threats?
If there is solid evidence that Assange conducted esponionage, then there is a reason for an arrest warrant. Trump and Obama's administrations both agreed that there was nothing criminal about publishing the data. However, conducting espionage (stealing) the data is a crime.
It almost worked with Ronnie Reagan
If you think John Hinckley, Jr. was acting out of a sense of patriotism, then you're the fucking idiot. Hinckley was a batshit-crazy "Taxi Driver" wannabe who was trying to impress the object of his obsession, Jodie Foster. He considered killing Jimmy Carter, then switched to Edward Kennedy, before finally settling on Reagan.
It doesn't matter Hinckley was batshit crazy, what matters is that had his assassination attempt been successful he'd done a great service to the USA. He would have acted the right way for the wrong reason.
Julian Assange is not a U.S. citizen. He does not run WikiLeaks from the U.S. It takes an incredible, overweening arrogance for U.S. officials to assume that every goddamned person in the world, wherever they may be, is subject to Washington's dictates. Imagine if the tables were turned -- say, the Russian government seeking to extradite and arrest an American citizen for acts that violated some Russian law but which occurred thousands of miles outside of Russian borders.
Assange doesnt run the show anymore, he never really did either. LOTS of other people doing the real work, hes more of a mouthpiece/figurehead.
So this isnt gonna change one thing, other than putting one man in a dark hole.
But i guess it makes them feel better about themselves, enough to pat each other on the backs and saying "good job!", like a real circle jerk.
I would have liked to see Assange pardoned and this matter cleared up. Obama had eight years to do this but dragged his feet, leaving Assange in legal limbo, because it was politically the most expedient thing to do.
Since it isn't (since he's bee cooped up at the Embassy) the party actually taking the files, but publishing files brought to him, and in a foreign country embassy no less (which is foreign territory) unless he is guilty of violating the laws of Ecuador, there isn't actually a LEGAL justification but a PR justification.
Assange did indicate he was in the process of releasing a series of leaks that actually demonstrate illegal activities by the CIA and this may be a pre-emptive strike to supress that data before it is released. Even if it could be demonstrated that Assange requested the information he has, he is not on US soil right now. In fact the USA has been trying to basically kidnap him in partnership with the Swedish government for years.
The pubic needs to demand curtailing of the CIA's activities as they act outside of any real regulation, outside our own laws, and outside of the world accepted definition of human rights, forget due process. That FISA court is basically a rubber stamp. They have NO ONE governing them really, and that is very, very dangerous. They use the shield of "national security" but to quote Benjamin Franklin, those who sacrifice their civil liberties for a little extra security deserve neither.Trump was actually praising them in his campaign when they gave him ammunition. Interesting how he doesn't say anything on the subject now.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope they DO arrest him.
Why, you ask?
So the dead man switch is activated and all of the horrible, nasty stuff that has been laying there, waiting to be exposed comes to light.
That'll shake up the establishment.
Assange said this was going to happen a number of years ago, and clearly he was right.
He is not subject to U.S. law. He wasn't in the United States of America and is not a U.S. Citizen.
You know what they say, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
You are welcome on my lawn.
since before it was even named slashdot and was called chips & dips
Sure, what Snowden did was treason, and perhaps even a federal capital case could be prosecuted. But Snowden acted first to commit the crime. Where Assange was however, it was not a crime to publish documents given to him by a third party. And while Assange drove wikileaks, can the US categorically state Assange actually was the person who received the documents? No they can't; because wikileaks doesn't work that way. Wikileaks did not seek the documents out nor did they coerce Snowden to steal them in the first place. Assange, a foreign citizen, acted on material given to wikileaks, in a foreign country. There is no jurisdiction to enforce any US laws in connection with these acts. Snowden, yes, he committed treason and likely ITAR violations. But Assange acted outside the jurisdiction of the US.
It is the hubris of the American Department of Justice to think that American law extends globally. The U.S. State Department warns US travelers that US law does not apply overseas and that US law does not protect them overseas. They recognize the sovereignty of the foreign countries. Why does the U.S. Department of Justice think they have the reach to pluck Assange out and prosecute him. Additionally every publisher that published excerpts from those documents is equally guilty, and many of those are on U.S. soil. Why aren't they being prosecuted? Because the US wants Assange on the general principle that Wikileaks is the actual enemy. But there will be serious unintended consequences on attempting to kidnap and prosecute Assange. The torrent (figuratively and literally) of data that will be released will be shocking. And Wikileaks has under Assange (before he holed up in the embassy) been a reasonable steward for the leaked data; at times wikileaks redacted data that identified people directly that would have resulted in loss of individuals lives. A mass data dump will not be so thoughtful.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
You guys, I get it... Wikileaks promised to be a whilstleblower safe haven, and an enabler for justice, but that's not what''s happened.
Assange has repeatedly editorialized his disclosures. Compare how Assange approaches leaks vs The Gardian and Ed Snowden for example. The latter is responsible, the former anarchistic. Assange is out to get people killed. He is dangerous.
Don't rally behind him... he has an agenda that is no safe haven for whistle blowing... he just wants weapons against nations and policies he doesn't support.
Well Trump is consistent in not doing any of the things he had campaigned to do.
Scott Adams notes out that people watch the same scenes and think they're viewing a different movie.
Looking at the anti-Trump rhetoric on this thread, I'm starting to wonder if that's literally true. It's gotten so blatantly obvious that I'm starting to wonder about the basic sanity of some people.
1) Bomb the shit out of ISIS
2) Build the wall (ongoing)
3) Withdraw from TPP
4) Suspend immigration from terror-prone areas (ongoing)
5) Rework health care (ongoing, 2nd round coming up)
6) Rework the tax code (ongoing)
7) Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
I don't agree with everything he's done, but you have to allow that he's done or in the process of doing at least *some* of his campaign promises.
And he's been in office for just under 100 days and there's lots to be done, and he's getting some of it actually done while running the country.
How do people come up with these alternate scenarios?
Is cognitive dissonance so powerful and so real that people literally make scenes up out of whole cloth?
I am astonished.
Prior to the election, there was information and allegations about potential tampering of the election. That was nothing new, that always comes up before an election.
Then during his campaign, Trump repeatedly said the election was rigged.
Then after the election, there were allegations that Russia was involved, and Trump back-pedaled and said there was no tampering with the election, Hilary lost fair and square.
All of these things cannot be true at the same time.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If you ever embarass the United States Government, there is no limit to the amount of time, resources and, if necessary, dirty or downright illegal tricks to ruin your life.
Their reaction, however, pretty much legitimizes the Wikileaks documents as no one puts this much effort into removing a source vs disproving false information.
It's hilarious the USG would rather go after the messenger vs leading by example and just following the rules.
Quit doing illegal shit and there won't be much to report on will there ? :|
paranoia and attention seeking!
Don't tell us that it was a valid and realistic concern all along! We need you to run round and defend the USA!
Assange did say he'd turn himself over in exchange for Mannings release. Then Obama pardon'ed Manning with a claim of it having nothing to do with Assange's offer. But now that Manning is about to be released (which BTW was his sentencing was very excessive) the gov story is writing it up.... to no surprise, as though the gov is totally in charge, makes no deal with Assange... etc...
So with all this in mind, there are still insurance files and with a public court case, which unlike Manning, will be public and with jury nullification.... This event Assange has proven, validated his reason for jumping bail and seeking asylum at the Ecuador Embassy, where he has in essence been in custody/constrained.
Good thing he is not the only one @ wikileaks.
"Wikileaks publishes everything down to social security numbers and GPS coordinates of informants in war zones"
Yeah, links plz. Or are you another sock for cold fnord?
His dad bailed him out and he's had smart accountants and lawyers, again paid through or contacted through his dad, but he's a fucking moron who fails pretty much every company he ever had, which is why the "Trump" brand is outside any company. He fucks up a company and then goes bankrupt through incompetence, but keeps the name trump to use again on the next failing project.
He's a retard. In a very precise and accurate meaning of the word.
There is no such thing as "the problem" in most cases. Trump causes a large number of problems. Spy agencies cause problems also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How did he stop chemical weapon attacks? Were they happening on a daily or weekly basis before? Otherwise, we can't tell from Syrian actions. We know he didn't do all that much damage, since the airfield was launching strikes again within hours.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not a fan of the Cold War, and I'm really not a fan of heating it up.
Reagan heated it up to the point where the Soviets had two choices: attack or fold. I see no reason why anyone could be sure beforehand that they'd fold. Reagan risked Western Civilization to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union. Except in retrospect, I'm not sure that was a good idea.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The constitution has become the bible. It's praised and claimed to be important but even when it has actually been read it is not followed. Word games beyond reason are accepted out of bias no matter how devoid of logic they may be. The constitution and preamble and the federalist papers made clear the intentions and meaning of a great deal of unusually clear concise wording in the constitution (just think about how clearly lawyers and politicians write today.)
Human rights can only be infringed upon, they are not given. The 1st amendment prohibits upon infringing upon human rights not citizen rights. We've long had a doctrine of dishonestly misinterpreting the constitutional prohibitions as affording rights and then by further warped "reasoning" those only being applicable to the citizens.
captcha: dungeon
Although anyone could simply sing songs and wave flags and such wouldn't bother me the least, I think it is a very short distance so to speak, from celebrating ones affinity to ones country to so called 'patriotism', which imo for a warring faction, is the equivalent to national extremism.
After all his efforts to help Trump get elected! He's been claiming for years the U.S. was out to get him, and he couldn't return to Sweden to face his rape charges because if he did they'd extradite him. But through all that time, the Obama administration never made any move to charge him with anything.
Then Trump comes into office with help from Assange. And hardly three months later, they're preparing to charge him. I don't think you got what you were hoping for!
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
The U.S. will drop the charade of pursuing charges against Assange when he shows them that he has a stash of files on Trump and Trump's associates and that those files would be released to the press if he a.) dies b.) is arrested.
Does anyone believe that the Russians only cracked the DNC email? They hacked both and then decided to only leak the DNC files. Putin and/or Assange has ALL of the files and I'll wager that Trumps are much more incriminating the the DNC files.
A foreign power interfered in the US election - that is a matter that should concern all Americans. That you are prepared to ignore this for partisan reasons is shameful, if not outright treasonous. It's not "The Left" that is concerned about this. Or are you trying to claim that Sen Graham is on the left? Ditto Senators McCain, Lankford, Corker, McCaul, Paul, McConnell, Gardner, all Republicans.
wiki article shows about 29 different chemical attacks by Syria... AFTER Obama's "Red Line". So you are a complete moron, posting on the internet about horrors you know nothing about and OBVIOUSLY don't care if chemical weapons are used on civilians if it "might" make Obama look bad.
Then you complain that Trump didn't destroy the runways, but I'll make the bet that you were also outraged that he attacked at all. So you are mad he did anything, AND that he didn't do enough. Meanwhile you pretend all the kids killed in the other 28 attacks didn't happen because it would make your hero look bad, and letting hundreds of civilians be killed is acceptable as long as Obama still looks competent.
You are a disgrace.
that these officials. Cannot or will not grasp the concept. That a person working for them or at least live in their country, may have a conscience. The nerve of those damn conscientious people of the world. How dare they with their morals. Don't they know we gave the sheeple the web to graze on. So we can weed out the conscience from our pastures.
Other than the New York Times, obviously. Which you're demeaning for opaque political reasons. Nah, just kidding, it's not political, you're just expressing your personal view.
Now that propaganda has moved online into the comments sections of blogs and into viral memes, Orwell is probably regretting in his grave encouraging propaganda writers to brighten up their use of language with more creative constructs, but no matter how colorful they still covertly adhere to the party line, not by manipulating facts, but by manipulating how you feel about facts.
This is only going to widen the rift between the oppressed constituent and the oppressing Corporate Oligarchy pulling all the USA strings!
Face it. This will only lead to a global civil war.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
I hope they have some actual charges for him if they plan to go after him. Because the thing with classified documents is that it is not illegal to share them if you did not sign an NDA or non disclosure agreement. He never signed it so he can do whatever he wants with them as someone else gave them to him willingly. If they wanted to go after the leaker I could understand, but really there is no legal recourse for going after wikileaks as no NDA means no law broken in regard to sharing or having these documents.
Assange is clearly in violation of his ND statement. He shouldn't have leaked all that information the US govt. entrusted to him with. All those journalists should be arrested along with anyone else who read the forbidden knowledge.
The question is not whether Obama failed to stop chemical attacks. We know that. The question is whether Trump has, and as yet we have no indication that he did. The lack of chemical attacks in the short period since the Tomahawk attack is insignificant. If Assad launches another chemical attack, we'll know Trump's strike did nothing to deter them. If he doesn't for a long time, that's some evidence the strike might have been influential.
I can see arguments for making a strike that has a serious effect on Assad's capabilities, and for not making a strike. Using lots of expensive missiles for a mostly ineffective strike is stupid, no matter how you look at it. I don't know enough to know whether making a strike at all was a good idea (I tend to think not, but I could be convinced otherwise), but I know that that particular strike was a big mistake.
"Hundreds of civilians"? Compared to the number of civilians that died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, that's trivial. There is no way we can possibly enforce peace in the Middle East, short of genocide.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes