Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Co-founder Julian Assange Arrested in London (theguardian.com)
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder was granted refuge in 2012 while on bail in the UK over sexual assault allegations against him in Sweden. From a report: At the time, Assange claimed that if he was extradited to Sweden he might be arrested by the US and face charges relating to WikiLeaks's publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables. The journalist and Assange supporter John Pilger called last week for people to "fill the street outside the embassy and protect him and show solidarity with a courageous man." US authorities have never officially confirmed that they have charged Assange, but in November 2018 a mistake in a document filed in an unrelated case hinted that criminal charges might have been prepared in secret. London's Metropolitan police released a statement which said officers had executed a warrant after the Ecuadorian government withdrew asylum.
That's not an impossible scenario. There's currently no European arrest warrant outstanding for him or extradition request from the USA, so it depends on whether the Crown Prosecution Service can be bothered to prosecute him for skipping bail.
Having said that, don't forget that for a proportion of the seven years he spent in the Ecuador embassy, he would have been sent to Sweden to face the rape accusations. So from his point of view, it may not have been time wasted if he thought he would be found guilty.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
There are photos and video of him apparently being carried/escorted out of the embassy by British police, so it seems more likely the Ecudoreans had just had enough and decided to let them come in and arrest him.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
He was never inaccessible. The Swedish prosecutor consistently refused to send someone to interview him (as had been done in several cases of suspected murder with the accused out of the country) and was censured for it (and subsequently resigned) because she only wanted to make a name for herself by prosecuting a high profile target. Instead, she issued the EAW to try and get him returned to Sweden because US had secretly agreed an extradition with her.
That way, she could claim credit for apprehending and prosecuting a fugitive and US could get their hands on a whistleblower who embarrassed them.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
If I were a judge and someone tried to convince me that a criminal was already incarcerated because he chose to hide, I'd have the guy committed due to extreme stupidity.
Except for the fact that he was peddling stolen information.
The US does not and has never had any legal grounds to extradite him to the US or to Gitmo. Gitmo is out of the question anyway because he is not an unlawful combatant captured in a war zone with no allegiance to any organized military force that could earn POW status.
He has not broken any US laws. He did not leak the information, he did not direct the collection of the information leaked by those who did leak it to him. He is not legally liable for the protection of said leaked US secrets.
He will not be extradited to the US, there is nothing we can request extradition for.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Funnily enough, the US has placed an extradition request, as confirmed now by the UK metropolitan police. So I'm afraid you are wrong.
From The Guardian:
Extradition request from US confirmed
Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.
In a statement it said:
Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court as soon as possible.
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act on behalf of US authorities. The Swedes seem to be planning on re-opening their assualt charges as well, so there's a potential he'll be making a detour to Scandinavia before crossing the Atlantic, which might not be all that unlikely if the objective is about keeping him bottled up as long as possible. Given he's now a proven flight risk I suspect his chances of bail while all this drags on through the appeals courts (which has taken years in other high profile cases) are pretty slim, so even if he ultimately prevails and avoids extradition it's likely to be quite some time before he's getting out of custody.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
That's not how UK courts work.
For a start the maximum sentence is 12 months. To get that the prosecution would have to show that he was acting purely maliciously, without any good reason at all. Since he now has irrefutable evidence that cases are pending against him in the US, and that the US does treat people accused/convicted of similar crimes by standards that would be illegal in the UK (e.g. Chelsea Manning), it's unlikely that they would be able to get the maximum sentence.
That evidence would also add weight to the argument that he was effectively incarcerated for 7 years, being unable to leave for at least part of it while Sweden was still seeking extradition.
So if convicted he would probably get 6 months maximum, of which he would likely serve half with good behaviour, and from which time already served awaiting trial would be deducted. Given that he would likely spend more than 3 months locked up simply awaiting trial, in practice he would walk free immediately.
So the CPS has to ask if it is worth all the expense of a prosecution, or find additional stuff to charge him with.
Of course they could decide to prosecute anyway, because he upset a lot of people and cost the government many millions of Pounds, but it would likely descend into farce with Assange coming off better in the end.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He was holed up in that embassy a good 4 years before the Hillary stuff.
"Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April)."
And when I say demented, I mean he has dementia.
As I understand, he can't really be prosecuted for espionage, and the bar for that charge is far higher than what is publicly known about Assange's activities. The short version is that he's a journalist, and not a US citizen, so it's expected that he'd try to publish American secrets.
Where he runs afoul of the CFAA is that he apparently offered to help. Journalists can't do that. As a journalist, Assange must be a passive observer of the world, publishing information given to him. He shouldn't have any active role in obtaining the information. However, it looks like he crossed that line, and he's getting hit for it.
Now, this isn't to say that journalists can't ever have an active role... but they do so as citizens, not journalists. They can use FOIA to force the release of government information, or they can go out and solicit interviews. They can pay sources for information, or participate in illegal activities... but they do all of that as private citizens, and they face all the same consequences as anyone else that does so. Anyone who offers to help crack a password to a system they aren't authorized to access would face the same charges that Assange does, journalist or not.
That's important, because it means this case isn't an attack on free press, or political retribution, or any kind of threat to rule-following journalists. It's a hacker-for-hire getting caught for hacking, and nothing more.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
You better think twice before denying. There are four billion dollar waiting for you ( https://www.enca.com/business/... )
to reward you for your good behavior. You're going to let all that pass you by?
Apparently, he offered to crack a password to a computer system, knowing that he's be aiding unauthorized access. That's a crime.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Is that supposed to be a crime or something? MSM does that all the time.
Here's the statement from the US DoJ. "Conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer" (SIPRNet) and a bit about helping/encouraging Manning to undertake the same, apparently. The usual boilerplate about "innocent until proven guilty" is in there, of course, but also the maximum sentence they are pushing for, which seems like a rather light five years before any time off for good behaviour and other considerations.
That's not to say they won't add extra charges (or arrange an "accident", if that's your view) between now and any potential trial, but that's still considerably less than I would have expected as a starting point given all the FUD from Assange and his supporters, especially given the charges and potential sentences in prior hacking cases like Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love, or the on-going case of Marcus Hutchins. Conspiring rather than actually doing makes quite a difference, it seems.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Sweden is interested in Assange because other people request them to be interested
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him.
Sadly the facts have now overtaken your careful and well-reasoned argument. The US has requested his extradition on computer hacking charges for helping Manning.
"Shayler died whilst arrested under these laws"
Eh? I think you might want to check that. He's still around.
And Machon was dating Shayler at the time.
The other you mentioned is a dubious telling of her tale. It's almost like you cherry-picked three people, two of whom acted together, the other of whom is mentally unstable but quite clearly still around and airing her views on Russian TV, and held them up as a beacon of hero worship.
As an outsider, with no real interest or research, I'll happily write all three off as credible witnesses. The first two are 9/11 truthers, claiming all kinds of nonsense, despite the fact that neither have worked for government since the mid 90's. Shayler's a bit of a nutter, who represented himself in court (always a tell of a true idiot) and failed miserably. Hell, he follows David Icke, ffs.
Just because you "worked for intelligence services" does not mean that you are credible... Hell I know someone who can say exactly that... they book flights for Middle East diplomats. That's their entire job. It's literally just an office job, with a security badge. And they're still subject to the Official Secrets Act just the same.
Sorry, but you've failed at the first hurdle... associating yourself with people less credible than my local barber. There's a reason why, when a whack-job scientist makes stupendous claims, reputable scientists keep their distance. This is no different.
I have no doubt that laws are cracking down on this - we're in a different world, technologically, the last 20-30 years. I'd be disappointed if there *wasn't* 2400 pages of technology laws formed in the last 18 years. I'd seriously question what the courts and ministers have been doing otherwise. But that these people are wandering around still talking tripe shows you one thing - the government really doesn't care and isn't at all afraid about you hearing what they have to say. The reason for that is clear... they are all just a bit screw-loose.
I don't doubt there are violations. I don't doubt that there's stuff to be whistleblown. I don't doubt that there's a lot we don't know and wouldn't approve of it we did. I'm certain of all those. I guarantee you that there's something hidden which, if revealed, would cause absolute uproar among the populace, and even myself.
But I'm equally certain that not one thing from Wikileaks, Assange, Manning or Snowden, or any of those you mentioned has done anything at all whatsoever to reveal something horrifyingly terrible enough to make people revolt. It was all stuff we either knew, suspected or inferred. All they did was show you that such public whistleblowers are all from the same mindset, and that what they sacrifice their freedom to whistleblow just isn't worth it in the end - nobody is up in arms about any of it.
A credible whistleblower would strive to be as anonymous as possible, they would not make public appearances, they would not harp on about things they have no personal knowledge of, they would provide evidence which - on its own - does not need explanation and which generates shock and outrage just by its mere existence.
You know what I want? ANYONE involved in the government side of the Guantanamo stuff to come forward and speak against the government. Even one person. The detainment, justice procedure, behaviour and continued presence there is unbelievably illegal. The general populace? Meh, they don't even care any more. Half of them don't even realise it still exists.
There's plenty of stuff to get disgusted about. But I can't say that *anything* the people mentioned here ever revealed was worth all that uproar, years of detention, fleeing to Russia, etc. for them, let alone for them to do it so I could "hear" about these things.
He's being charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and one of the reasons for his arrest was a US extradition request:
https://edition.cnn.com/uk/liv...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act [police.uk] on behalf of US authorities.
I can sue you right now. That doesn't mean I have anything I could sue you for with a hope of winning. Making an extradition request and having it granted are two different things.
Quite specifically this will have to go through a whole new legal trial since the previous extradition to Sweden was based on a completely different crime, country, and circumstance.
Horseshit. Assange always offered to return to Sweden if the government would promise not to use the charges as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, for the crime of being a journalist.
And guess what this arrest proves, dipshit: Assange was always right, and tools like yourself were always wrong. Or did you not notice the extradition hearing is going to be to the United States, NOT SWEDEN?
It was to be expected since Equator received their payment last month. It just took this long to find out if the trumped up charges of sex assault could still be used, or if it was time to open up the game and show what everybody knew, that it was the USA behind it all.
Equator's payment was $4.2bn from IMF - https://www.enca.com/business/imf-approves-42bn-loan-ecuador
What crime? Afaik, the espionage act has never been successfully prosecuted against a member of the press. Even if he conspired to gain access to classified documents, so what? The pentagon papers decided that outcome almost 50 years ago, and it didn't go in the government's favor.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
You want to reward Assange for "Collateral Murder"?
The warrant predates the DNC hack by years.
Talk about can't keep up!!
"As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site."
You must be kidding.
He's not kidding. And it's true.
If you never got a security clearance, then you never signed away your first amendment rights. Which means you can publish any classified information that lands in your lap.
The key is the information must "land in your lap". If you become an active participant in the leak (direct what to leak, offer a reward, provide technical help, etc), then you've crossed the line into being a co-conspirator.
But in the meantime, the Swedish case has ended.
Technically, only the assault charge, which he successfully evaded until the statute of limitations expired. The rape charge is still pending.
Does the UK recognize any US law enforcement standard practices as "torture"? Because that's going to be a hard case to make. Sure, if Assange could argue he was likely to be rendered, then that'd be one thing, but the reality is the very fact the US is doing things through the correct channels right now would undermine that aspect of Assange's argument (should he choose to make it.)
NOTE: I am not arguing the US doesn't torture, and doesn't torture prisoners on US soil. Amnesty International has a long list of things the US does that it considers that and I agree with 90% of them. What I'm stating is that the UK doesn't, as far as I'm aware, recognize what it does as torture: if it did, it wouldn't ever extradite anyone.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If I burn a Koran in the public square in my midwestern US town, am I subject to being extradited to Iran to face punishment?
No, Anonymous Coward, you aren't.
For extradition to occur two criteria have to be met -
1) The alleged offense has to be considered a crime in both countries. This is typically determined by a judge at the extradition hearing.
2) There has to be an extradition treaty between the two countries.
Neither criteria are met in your example, both criteria are met in the Assange situation.
(In some circumstances there also has to be assurances that the death penalty will not be sought. For example, Canada will not extradite individuals charged with murder to the USA unless the USA guarantees the alleged perpetrator will not be executed if found guilty.)
Would you like to see an actual PDF of the Assange indictment? Please notice the big stamp on it and the date. Who do you think was president when this indictment was filed?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11...
Just in case you've forgotten, Assange was arrested today. Trump has been president for over two years.
You are welcome on my lawn.