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.

17 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.

  2. Matt Whittaker by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Matt Whittaker by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney, served on the firm’s advisory board "

      Really doesn't sound like "His Company"

      It was enough Whittaker's company that he made promotional videos for them and wrote threatening letters to customers who complained about the fraud. He was apparently very involved with the company.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Matt Whittaker by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they will be trying to prosecute, is that it is illegal for a foreign citizen in a foreign nation to report the criminal espionage activity of the United States government in those and other nations, interesting idea. So here I am in Australia, if I see an CIA agent murder an Australian in Australia, the US government wants to be able to prosecute me for the crime of espionage if I publicly report their crime, keeping in mind it is a crime to fail to report a crime, accessory after the fact. So the US government is attempting to demand that citizens all over the world, betray their own countries laws, to keep secret the criminal activities of the US government, in those countries.

      Perhaps some of you can grasp why this would be an extremely hard sell, for anything but an entirely corrupt third world nation, a puppet state of the US deep state. He was reporting on US criminal activities outside of the US, as a foreign citizen, in a foreign land. Now the US wants to make it illegal and global law, that the US is able to break any countries laws for any reason and that no citizen of any country, NO CITIZEN, is allowed to report those crimes and should they do so, be subject to prosecution and obviously illegal detention and probably torture. Go fuck yourself USA. So will the UK buckle, probably not, not matter how much the US extorts them with the bullshit white helmets and the theft of 200 million US dollars, even after the poms were forced to buy more crappy F35 Flying Pigs as a result.

      It would also be extremely poorly received in Australia and possibly result in a boycott of US goods, expect Breaker Morant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... messaging. Want to extradite Assange, do it from Australia, else face a major backlash and many Australians doing much worse than Julian Assange.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. Prosecute him for? by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

  4. Jurisdiction? by rally2xs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Jurisdiction? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you support leaking when it hurts the other party but not your own party, you are the problem. Fix your own party so you don't have to worry about leaking (and personally I'd be happy if both parties collapse. They don't represent the majority of the people, anyway).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Jurisdiction? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't be a spy unless you're an insider. You can't be a traitor unless you owe allegiance to a government. He was in neither situation with respect to the Untied States of Dumberica.

  5. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not paranoia when they're actually out to get you.

  6. In court? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. He's not a US citizen... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:He's not a US citizen... by speederaser · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      52 U.S. Code  30121 is a Federal law that makes it a felony for any foreign national to attempt to influence a U.S. election, and a felony for any U.S. citizen to help them do it.

      The DOJ appears to be trying to get Assange for conspiracy with Russians or Americans to influence the 2016 U.S. election. There is public information that Roger Stone, a long-time Trump associate, was in contact with Assange during the campaign, discussing how to handle the stolen DNC emails. Maybe that plays out, maybe it doesn't. In any case we'll know more when Mueller wraps things up.

  8. Assange is Australian by DMJC · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Assange's defense ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.
  10. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Shaitan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by William+Baric · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".