Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Is Preparing To Prosecute WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange (wsj.com)
According to the Wall Street Journal, "the Justice Department is preparing to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source) and is increasingly optimistic it will be able to get him into a U.S. courtroom." From the report: Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012. The people familiar with the case wouldn't describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.
Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.
Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.
Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.
Being both an asshole and paranoid didn't mean he was wrong.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Just remember, the head of the Justice Department is Trump's new appointee Matthew Whittaker, who was a patent troll whose company was shut down for fraud and whose claim to fame was a toilet designed for guys with really big dicks and a time-traveling bitcoin-based commodity..
I did not make that up.
https://boingboing.net/2018/11...
https://theslot.jezebel.com/th...
So if you have a problem with Julian Assange being prosecuted, take it up with Hair Furor.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What? Telling the Truth? Out loud? Without a Permit? I love how the people he EXPOSED are still FREE AS BIRDS, but this guy just HAS To be "Prosecuted"
How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.
It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right? I mean.... it's a crime in many countries to depict the Prophet Mohammed, and some of those countries are international treaty signatories, but that doesn't mean they get to extradite Charlie Hebdo artists.
Was he in the US during any of his espionage activities?
It's not paranoia when they're actually out to get you.
Mr. Assange's platform has shrunk dramatically during his internment. If we had the audacity to put him on trial he'd become more powerful than he has ever been.
That would not be permitted. There would be a Jack Ruby. I'd wager a pint on it.
He's not a US citizen, he owes no fucking allegiance to the US. He has no duty to protect US secrets or to the US government. Screw the US for presuming that they can bully the world for publishing information they don't like.
And Fuck the Australian government for not protecting one of our own. Vote Independant next Federal election and turf these assholes out. Labor is making deals with China's Belt and Road and the Liberals are just scum. None of them deserve government.
Impossible -- he's not an American citizen (or even a legal resident) and thus doesn't owe allegiance or fealty to the US.
... will be that he's a publisher and protected by freedom of the press.
When his name first surfaced in association with Wikileaks, he made it clear that he was simply the "spokesman," and did not "hack," or supervise the release of material, and had no way to know what the internal workings were.
He was simply the front man.
That's how he circumvented culpability for a hell of a lot of years.
Wikileaks itself elevated interest in Assange when the organization turned political in a move to increase donations which had fallen off due to lack of interest by supporters.
Wikileak's decline also affected Assange's visibility and he resented the lack of attention.
Assange started to take some credit for the material Wikileaks was releasing.
That was incriminating and blew his credibility as a distant spokesperson.
For that reason, he asserted that he was a journalist and that Wikileaks was a publishing house.
I'm leaving out the the narrative regarding his relationship with two women because those details are irrelevant.
With the loss of Ecuador's support, Assange is in deep shit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I believe that sunlight disinfects. The fewer secrets countries and corporations are able to keep, the better off the world is. Snowden, Assange, and Manning are all heroes.
The villains in the US are the officials that squandered $6 trillion (6 trillion dollars!) on military homicide sprees since 9/11. Money that could have been used better within the US. Want to put America first -- do it, don't give it lip service while dumping money into futile wars abroad.
Leave it in your ass, moron, you don't know shit.
How's he supposed to learn about shit if he leaves it in his ass?? Sometimes you've just got to get your hands dirty.
.. a long string of Bluffs. There are no charges. The UK police had him and could have extradited him, they did not. Julian offered to turn himself over in exchange for the release of Manning, They released him but Obama nullified Julians offer. The rape allegations turned out to be nothing. The UK police going into the Embassy was not to take him out but to verify he was still there. The UK Police and their leads know full well the embassy border laws. They went ion because I bluffed them. There was a single video feed of that night by a supposed independent, there were several streams/urls of this video feed but one with a chat box. I posted "Julian left the building two weeks ago". Verification was asked for, I stayed quiet, they went in (all this within 15 minutes).
Why the Bluffs? It sends the message the people have no control over their government and that the news media better stay away from the truth. Apparently, they pretty much are and this is not the first time the news media has been threatened as there was an anthrax issue in 2001.
There are no viable charges against Wikileaks nor Assange. Not by Sweden, UK nor the US.
Julian has dug deep into the world of secrets and has seen how nasty some in power can be and have been, Snowden has contributed to this exposure. But knowing all this, how easy is it for Julian to see the Bluff?
Naturally, it was a ruse back then to get Assange to drop his guard. My main hope at this point is that formal charges will get the ball rolling on actual due process. Fortunately, the Deep State usually hates laying its cards on the table, so I'm optimistic that if some authority is required by a court to lay facts and evidence down for all to see, then they'll scurry away and drop the charges.
Exactly. It's tough to think of someone who comes off as more slimy and repulsive than Julian Assange. The man has a demeanor of a reptile. But Wikileaks and his work are the real reason he is being persecuted and no free thinking person who believes in democracy and rule by the people support that persecution.
Not necessarily. No matter the charges, if he was found guilty on them and was sentenced, the time spent in prison might be less than the time spent in the embassy, which by any other form is just another prison.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.
Of course he was right, otherwise he'd be in a Swedish prison on rape charges.
It was the fear of being extradited to the US, either legally or by rendition, that had him worried.
Remember this was happening around the time when the US was grabbing people off the streets of Europe and sending them to black sites in 3rd countries for torture.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Basically the only country in the world that still thinks it is okay to torture people?
The country thinks that? Or maybe Trump and his deplorables think that.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
How the heck was that moderated as "Insightful"? Even for today's Slashdot, that's a bit of a stoop. I wonder if any of the comments are coming from people who have read any of the books about WikiLeaks or even today's story in question.
Assange did start with an interesting idea. However he is basically a nutjob and he basically set himself up to be used and abused. He peaked out several years ago when he achieved useful idiot status. Before that, he had actually done some interesting stuff that was on the edge of journalism, but he never developed any mechanisms to deal with the incoming data, so it ultimately became a GIGO operation for anyone with garbage to propagate. While WikiLeaks had some credibility, it was useful to feed him garbage, but now that he lost the credibility, no one actually cares what Assange does.
Notwithstanding, I doubt the useful idiot defense is going to work if they manage to get him into a US court. His best hope might be to seek the trial now and hope he can get the conviction thrown out when Trump tweets some idiotic and prejudicial thing. Except for the problem with the new judges out of Leviticus.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Wait, you mean the UK wasn't spending millions of pounds a year to surveil him around the clock just to return him to Sweden to answer questions about some vague sexual assault case that felt about as authentic as an episode of reality TV????
Shocked...I'm just shocked I tell you...
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So this particular conspiracy theory was right all along.
It's not a conspiracy theory if the only people who think it's *not* true are idiots like AmiJoJo.
Anyone who thinks the UK was spending millions of pounds a year surveilling Assnage around the clock just to return him for questioning on some vague sexual assault case in Sweden were deluded morons to begin with. It was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that the intent all along was to extradite him to the U.S., and that the whole Sweden case was just a honeypot operation. They just wanted to get him on a plane before he could find asylum in some country that isn't a U.S. lapdog. And if it weren't for Ecuador having an embassy in London, he'd already be rotting in a U.S. prison (or worse, being held indefinitely in Guantanamo).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Assange quit exposing things for the sake of truth years ago. He used Wikileaks to pursue a personal agenda, and he made it very clear that he hoped to throw the US election.
He was so eager to pillory his target that he sold himself out, not only to their domestic opponents, but to a not-exactly-friendly foreign nation as well.
If there was ever anything to admire or respect about the man, there's precious little left of it now.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Snowden and Manning did their civic duty. If the government is so corrupt, civic duty is heroic then government needs to be overhauled.
Nonetheless, they did a significant national service.
Assange has tried to play puppet master, controlling what information is given, selecting what you can and cannot know. I see no difference between him and the Pentagon, selective manipulation for personal gain.
If they should be prosecuted, so should he.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth. Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime. I can understand you may be nationalistic (although your signature in French makes me doubt that), but then you should have the honesty to say your goal is only to increase the power of the US by all means necessary. Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.
BTW, I'm not American. I live in Canada, and I certainly consider the US as a "not-exactly-friendly foreign nation".
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.
You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true.
The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth.
No, the other poster clearly indicated he wants to crucify Assange for using Wikileaks for personal gain and/or vendettas.
Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime.
The problem is he didn't really expose the truth, he exposed half a truth and mislead many people. We all know that he allowed Wikileaks to be used a vehicle for propaganda and helped the Russian intelligence agencies interfere in the U.S. election. He did so because he wanted to pursue a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. The amusing part is that he hated Clinton because she wanted to do what the Trump administration is trying to do to him now.
This looks like a case of being hoisted by your own petard, and I have little sympathy for someone who deliberately helped Trump get elected when they are facing the consequences of Trump having been elected.
Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.
That's ok. Sometimes people just want to enjoy a little schaedenfreude.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Define "rape". My understanding is that he met a girl at a bar and they got it on. She later decided that it was rape because they were both drinking.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
He didn't break a law, he published content from a leaker. The leaker broke the law, he just happened to be the only uncorrupted reporter with a media outlet willing to actually do his job and report (aside from Michael Hastings.)
Really. You use that to describe Assange, who's revealed war crimes and corrupt secrets from both parties in the USA and nations around the world, and not someone like Sean Hannity or Rachael Madcow, who's paid $30,000 to alternate between McCarthyism and gaslighting.
So I have to ask....is your willful dumbfuckery powered by fusion?
What would be the pretext in the UK? Assange isn't accused of committing any crimes there and thus they would have no reason to detain or question him. Even now, as the Trump DOJ is proving all of Assange's fears to be completely rational and his haters to be assholes, a foriegn state doing a snatch-and-grab on the CIA's say so in broad daylight would force people to pay attention. And the UK has denied extradition to the USA based on how brutally America treats it's prisoners. Prisoners like Chelsea Manning, who was tortured with solitary confinement for a year and a half.
As opposed to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on an alleged crime (even though he was questioned and given permission to leave by a prosecutor) and that government has had no problems giving people to the US to be tortured.
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.
False. Intent matters. Assange's intent on getting his ego stroked, and this has rather obviously coloured his actions.
I also do not at all appreciate your blatant attempts at projection, miscategorisation, and to put words in my mouth. I never said anything remotely like I wanted to "crucify" Assange. So stop claiming that I did, or KGFY.
You also continue to ignore—even though I've made myself pretty clear on this point—that I don't object to uncovering facts. What I object to is Assange's highly selective use of selected information as a weapon to further a very self-interested agenda, one that takes no consideration of its effects on the well-being of countless ordinary Americans (and others) who've done no-one any harm, least of all Assange.
And just so you know, I'm a US-Swedish dual national and, yes, I do consider myself a loyal citizen of both of my countries, and, no, I see nothing wrong with that.
When you're ready to respond to things I've actually said, get back to me.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.