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.
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.
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.
They're not dropping the charges. They're dropping the investigation and arrest warrant.
It's not a matter of dropping the charges (after all, no charges has been formally presented)
Yes and no. The Swedish system differs from the American system most here are familiar with, and distinguishes between "häktad" (arrest charge) and "åtalad" (trial charge). The US system doesn't have a two-tier system and treats informal and formal arrest the same, requiring a trial charge and court order for keeping the person jailed during investigation.
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.
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.
That's begging the question. Of course she can, if the consent was given on false information or under duress. That is why there is a case to be answered in the first place, to establish that, using proper procedures, in a court of law.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Translating the charge against him to "rape" is already fucked up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
It's technically a charge of "lesser rape"- we wouldn't call it rape in the English speaking world. Sweden has three types of "rape" on their laws, only one of which we would call rape, and the least serious of which is what Assange is accused of.
This is a common argument made by Assange supporters - that the "rape" allegation is only "rape" in Sweden.
Its a bullshit argument.
Here in the UK, for extraditions to be approved by the court, the reasons for extradition need to meet the "dual criminality" test - they need to be equitable crimes here in the UK, and if they are not then the extradition is not carried out.
Assanges lawyers tried arguing that "its only rape in Sweden" to the UK High Court during their appeal in July 2011 - the court threw their arguments out, giving a lengthy ruling on this very exact issue:
See points 104 to 127 in the High Court ruling - the court spends five and a half pages giving its reasons why the court has judged that the fourth offence being considered against him is also considered "rape" in the UK.
Five and a half pages. And that doesn't even count the pages spent giving reasonings for the other three offences being considered!
And yet people like you still use the "its only rape in Sweden" line!
The US is no longer a nation of laws but of men with power.
Hm. Tell that to the judge who smacked down Trump's muslim ban.
There's no doubt Trump would love to implement something similar to Putin's kleptocracy, but he's stupid. So there's that.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It took Putin a while to beat down dissent. The sad part about Russia is that even though it was corrupt, they had a functional democracy and a free press for a few years. All murdered/imprisoned, now.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Yes, here you actually need reason to believe a crime has been committed in order to incarcerate someone. That seems superior to me.
You need that in Sweden too. The difference is that Sweden does not have a conveyor belt system of trial court judges that rubberstamps arraignments and arrest orders for cases they have no background knowledge about.
Because the arrest charges can differ from the trial charges, there's less of the American practice of tossing everything you can on the wall in the hope that enough sticks.
There's also a safeguard in that can sue for restitution for the time spent jailed if the case doesn't go to court. So it's not done lightly. In fact, that it isn't done lightly is what allowed Assange to leave the country.
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.
You don't know what the word "democratically" means
Not the GP, but in this thread the person who doesn't know what democracy means is you. Democracy means rule by the people (literally, by the city). Implementations of democracy are referred to as either direct democracy or indirect / representative democracy. In a direct democracy, eligible voters are permitted to decide issues directly. In a representative democracy, the people select, via some mechanism, representatives who decide issues on their behalf. Nothing in the definition of a representative democracy requires that the representatives be selected via a straight first-past-the-post single-constituency election.
You seem to have been taught a fallacy that is common in the US, that a democracy and a republic are different and incompatible systems of government, rather than orthogonal aspects of a system of government (you can have a democratic monarchy and an authoritarian republic, for example, but you can also have a democratic republic).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.