Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Still Faces Legal Jeopardy In Three Countries (chicagotribune.com)
Though Sweden dropped an investigation into rape allegations against Julian Assange, "I can conclude, based on the evidence, that probable cause for this crime still exists," chief prosecutor Marianne Ny told reporters in Stockholm. An anonymous reader quotes Newsweek:
Ny stressed in her statement Friday that the investigation could be reopened before the statute of limitations on the case expires in 2020. If Assange "went into British custody, then the Swedes may well revisit their decision ⦠as extradition is suddenly easier", tweeted legal expert David Allen Green. Assange failed to answer a bail hearing when he took refuge in the embassy, resulting in an active warrant for his arrest by London's Metropolitan Police, punishable by up to a year in prison. Foremost of Assange's concerns is possible extradition to the U.S., where he he could be detained on espionage charges... Ecuador has offered Assange asylum should he be able to leave Britain.
Meanwhile, The Chicago Tribune reports that "a federal inquiry is widely assumed to be underway by prosecutors in Virginia." According to a former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity to discuss the Assange case, American authorities are now presented with a "cat and mouse game." "The decision on whether to indict him rests largely on whether they can get their hands on him," the former official said. Indicting the head of an organization such as WikiLeaks presents a huge number of First Amendment issues, but the Trump White House has indicated such issues may be less of a hurdle than during previous administrations. Prosecutors could seek a sealed indictment -- or may have one already -- to be unveiled if and when Assange strays within reach of American law enforcement, the former official said.
Meanwhile, The Chicago Tribune reports that "a federal inquiry is widely assumed to be underway by prosecutors in Virginia." According to a former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity to discuss the Assange case, American authorities are now presented with a "cat and mouse game." "The decision on whether to indict him rests largely on whether they can get their hands on him," the former official said. Indicting the head of an organization such as WikiLeaks presents a huge number of First Amendment issues, but the Trump White House has indicated such issues may be less of a hurdle than during previous administrations. Prosecutors could seek a sealed indictment -- or may have one already -- to be unveiled if and when Assange strays within reach of American law enforcement, the former official said.
I'm not in Sweden, but from other more knowledgeable sources, I'm led to believe that this is indeed legal.
Really, very little has changed. The charges have not been dropped. Rather, the case has been suspended. In fact, the official statement sounds more like Sweden is saying "there's nothing else to do unless he comes out", so they're not putting more resources into the investigation until new options present themselves.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Unless the constitution has changed since he took office, the only way the hurdles should be any less is if he plans on ignoring said constitution.
Obama would have violated the Constitution (he was trying to w/Assange and has a number of times while in office regarding other topics) in a heartbeat to prosecute Assange. It wouldn't matter who was POTUS or if they were (R) or (D). The US has become an authoritarian oligarchy. Oligarchies like the US and other authoritarian regimes will not tolerate having their misdeeds exposed and will go to extreme lengths to retaliate against any who dare, as we've seen both here with Assange and with Snowden.
The US is no longer a nation of laws but of men with power. Government violates constitutional rights and responsibilities on a mass scale with almost no regard and little consequence. High crimes of the elites go unpunished while those who expose the wrongdoing are persecuted, prosecuted, and imprisoned or killed unless they seek asylum in a non-friendly foreign nation.
This is no longer the United States. While we were all busy being apathetic and living life through the TV the US was replaced under our wide-as-a-La-Z-Boy asses with an elitist oligarchy.
The only question now is, will we do anything about it besides whine using 140-character hashtag virtue-signaling?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The word has been redefined. It used to imply violence or threat thereof, not any more. Underage sex is also called "rape". Newspeak.
The sexual case against Assange was always very dubious. Women accusing him of "rape" then having a lobster dinner with him the next night. None of them wanting to press charges etc.
The Swedish prosecutor knows this which is why she never questioned Assange in the embassy. She was relieved when the statutary time limit expired on the lesser charges. And now she is just rationalizing her position. The last thing she wants is this farce to go to trial.
The British bail charge is also irrelevant. At worst Assange could spend a few months in jail, but that is unlikely.
But the US charges are a different matter. He could spend the rest of his life in a very uncomfortable cell (quite unlike Swedish jails). And their justice system is pretty rough. Also remember, they have huge sentences for minor crimes, so being found guilty of anything at all would be very serious.
Assange's real crime was publishing that video of US soldiers shooting up civilians. That is unforgivable.
So why didn't he? You talk as if Assange was holed up in an embassy throughout the entire Obama years. He wasn't.
TBH, I don't think there was any strong desire to see Assange arrested and tried in the US by the Obama government. You can make all kinds of claims about the degree to which any US government, Obama, Bush, or Trump, was lawless, but actually imprisoning someone requires a trial, and it's far from clear there'd be any grounds and evidence to convict Assange. The most likely result of an unconstitutional extradiction followed by a trial on dubious charges is a humiliating acquittal.
The claim Assange made was even more ridiculous: he was in hiding because Sweden would extradite him with the aim of then extraditing him to the US rather than prosecuting him for an actual crime they believe he committed. Why would the US want him for a flimsy trial they were unlikely to win if Sweden could actually imprison him legitimately? And if they really are that stupid, why wouldn't the UK just extradite to the US directly, given the UK is far more friendly to the US than Sweden is?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.