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.
" 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. "
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.
I can see that happening for some reason.
It seems ridiculous that Sweden is effectively keeping their fingers crossed while saying they're dropping the charges. You know, unless he leaves the embassy so they can get him, then they'll immediately charge him again.
Can someone in Sweden please clarify if this is legal?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Maybe it's just me but I think it's bizarre that the US wants prosecute someone that was never in their jurisdiction nor attempted to help one country over another. It wreaks of tyranny.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
reeks*
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The US secret justice system, with secret orders, inquiries, etc is really a beautiful mark of democracy...
It sounds like Ny playing politics.
Ny: "Dropping the investigation is not a result of deciding he is not guilty, Ny added -- it's because there's no practical way to continue it. "
The woman only pressed charges when he refused an aids test, and she cannot remove consent AFTER THE FACT, which is what her and Ny tried to do. She cannot change it to conditional consent either, after the fact. i.e. its OK to have sex without a condom as long as you have an aid test afterwards, made no sense.
Ny should be more professional and less political.
As for Assange, he evaded the extradition and will face charges from that. In the USA, he's simply a conduit for Russian propaganda leakers, if he wasn't the conduit, some other conduit would be used. If it was PasteBin, would PasteBin be prosecuted? Nothing to see there.
So after Trump is elected, Sweden hates Trump and drops the charges. They don't want to do anything to help Trump. Their behavior is unrelated to the nominal charges, it's all about their political position.
They have chosen this path to save face and to keep their options open. It still might be useful for Sweden to do something on the behalf of the US, so they are still keeping Asange as a possible target.
So much time has passed since Assange was originally charged that the situation has completely changed. Wikileaks is now allied with Russia and wants payback against the US. They are no longer a neutral 3rd party trying to uncover the truth. They have a pro-Russian agenda.
Given that Putin wants to destabilize Western democracies it is hard to see Assange as a victim. He has chosen the dark side and even though it is easy to see why, he has lost all moral authority.
Why is Snark Required?
US prosecution is a bit laughable. Assange did not steal any documents - they were given to him. As a non-US citizen, not resident in the US, all of whose actions took place outside of the US: he is clearly not subject to US jurisdiction.
I'm sure the US would love to prosecute him, but doing so would be a mockery of justice.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
If the US is trying to "back door" a "Official Secrets act". If you don't know what that is, it's a law in some jurisdictions that even if you are not sworn to protect secret information, and have no officially granted access to it, you are bound to preserve it's secrecy. Such laws are a prior restraint on free speech to those that did not agree to preserve secret information. While President Obama had a dismal record on this subject, the Trump Administration is on course for an even worse record on free speech. President Trump on on record many times saying he wishes to "Open up libel laws" - even for speech that is truthful.
All I can say is that I view truth as an absolute defense against libel, and if you are not read in to a program that you have absolutely no duty to preserve it's secrecy. While Bradly/Chelsea Manning and John Snowden clearly did have such a duty, Assange just as clearly did not. As much as I personally dislike Assange, he committed no crime vis-a-vi WikiLeaks. It's also just as clear that the US would love to rendition him to a black site however they can get their hands on him.
Maybe the key here is to not start on a course that has questionable ethics. In my view, what the US has done and continues to do has some facets with very questionable ethics. Yes, sometimes you have to do that. But it shouldn't appear to be the course of first resort.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
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.
Nothing's changed, Assange is still practically incarcerated indefinitely under threat of being extradited to the US, just how the US government wants it. This sets an example for other whistleblowers, blow the whistle and we will lock you up forever, if not in an actual prison then in an embassy if you're lucky. First there were the rape charges, then there are the failure to appear in court charges, next it'll be violating a housing code or something.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Like the non-pardon of the Collateral Murder leaker, this is a PR stunt designed to pressure Assange into leaving the embassy. Puts him in the headlines for a couple of days.
Still a sham ...To extradite him to the US, nothing more
To the contrary. At the time that he jumped bail on his promis to appear in Sweden for questioning, there really was no threat to extradite him to the U.S.. The Obama administration was vigorously prosecuting Americans who leaked U.S. secrets, but it had no apparent intent of going into dubious legal territory of trying to prosecute a foreigner who assisted publication of secrets he didn't leak himself. At the time, the threat to extradite him from Sweden to the U.S. was all in his mind. (And in any case, if the US had wanted him, it would have been just as hard, or just as easy, to extradite him from Sweden as from the UK.)
But by fleeing his bond and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy, he allowed a new presidential administration to come to power in the U.S., and now there really is a credible threat, since this administration has no problem with dubious legal territory.
As far as I've seen, leaks from Snowden showed that the NSA had tools to intercept conversations and emails, including hacking into networks and computers, and did so in order to do what we used to call "wiretapping", but I don't recall seeing suggestions that they "tamper with information of elected individuals, fabricate information, and outright lie."
Citation needed.
The threat at the time was "extraordinary rendition" such as what occurred to Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery from Bromma airport in Stockholm.
Please do try to keep up.
Have gnu, will travel.
No, there is a legal principle that extradition doesn't take place unless the alleged act was a crime in both countries. The UK court system had to find that what Assange was accused of is rape under UK law for the extradition to go forward. The UK courts are the exact correct venue to determine that, and that's what they determined.
This doesn't imply anything about Assange being guilty or innocent. That would be legally established in a trial Assange has taken great pains to avoid.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you want evidence that it's a farce and he is in fact a pissant weasel, look at what Snowden said about Ecuador: The CIA operates with impunity there, and they can make the Ecuadorian government do whatever they want. If Snowden were to go there, he could easily get removed and sent to the US. And, we already know the US has influence on the embassy where Assange is, namely they had Ecuador cut off his internet access for the US election.
If the US wanted him out of that embassy, they would have had him out a long time ago. Assange knows this but doesn't care, he's just trying to avoid going to Sweden.
In fact, if anything I'd wager that the US likes him there because they effectively have him on a leash, and they don't even need to risk putting him to trial.