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.

Comments

I hope they just let him go

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst thing that could happen to him now is that the US doesn't try to extradite him and England only questions him and lets him go. He'll have thrown away 7 years of his life voluntarily and look like a narcissistic idiot (more so than he already does).

Re:I hope they just let him go

[AmiMoJo]

Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.

On the other hand, he humiliated the government and caused it to waste many millions on policing outside the embassy. It's also likely that the US will want to get hold of him (they accidentally confirmed that there is an active prosecution) so there will be pressure from across the pond.

I imagine he has thought all this through and probably has some kind of insurance policy, something he can use as leverage if it goes badly.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[Cederic]

Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.

Given someone was today given six months for skipping bail for a grand total of ten months I think the CPS will very much be expected to prosecuted.

That's not even factoring in that his arrest is explicitly _for_ skipping bail.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[nojayuk]

it depends on whether the Crown Prosecution Service can be bothered to prosecute him for skipping bail.

Someone who skipped bail a few months back and fled abroad has returned to the UK voluntarily, saying he panicked and made a mistake and apologised in court for absconding. He got a sentence of six months for the bail offence added to his in-absentia sentence for manslaughter today.

Assange has been "on the run" for seven years after skipping bail and had to be dragged kicking and protesting from his hidey-hole and it's unlikely he will apologise in court for skipping bail. I don't see the Crown Prosecution Service thinking "well, he's not worth the effort of prosecuting for absconding while bailed" in those circumstances.

It's pretty rare for the legal establishment to disregard bail offences as it might encourage others to similarly offend, thinking "I can skip bail and nothing will happen to me."

Re: I hope they just let him go

[nojayuk]

The person facing a manslaughter charge left the country before the case came to trial, absconding while on bail. After he returned voluntarily to the UK he pled guilty to absconding while on bail and received a 6-month sentence for that particular offence, mitigated by his voluntary return to custody, pleading guilty to absconding and apologising for absconding in the first place.

The British judicial system has specified tariffs for sentencing including reduction in sentences for pleading guilty, showing remorse and other factors. I can't really see Julian Assange getting treated as lightly in his case given he was expelled from the Embassy but had to be taken from there by British police since he wouldn't leave voluntarily. I don't expect him to plead guilty to absconding since he's JULIAN ASSANGE! after all and as for showing remorse for absconding well...

The severity of the crime they are originally charged with does not affect whether the offence of absconding while on bail should be prosecuted or not. It's a separate offence that is taken seriously by the British judicial system.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[Sarten-X]

Apparently, he offered to crack a password to a computer system, knowing that he's be aiding unauthorized access. That's a crime.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[Frobnicator]

He's not a US citizen. In the 1990s he was convicted of some computer crimes in Australia (where he is from) but he served his time.

When this started there were accusations of rape, which is a crime most of the world is willing to extradite for. To rape someone you actually need to be there. But now there are charges for what, and where was he?

If he were a US citizen being charged for violating US law while abroad, I could understand the extradition. But here, he's an Australian citizen being extradited for so far unspecified crimes committed against a country he apparently wasn't in and isn't a citizen of.

Imagine if the US turned over to China everybody who spoke ill of the Chinese government, or shipped off to North Korea the people who released documents that North Korea deemed offensive. Unless there are some other charges, that's what I see as the equivalent. From what I've read, his only ties to the US are that he offended politicians there, and published documents the government (which was a foreign government for him) didn't want published.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[MightyMartian]

Why would they torture him? The DoJ's signals thus far are a five year prison term, and it's unlikely, even if convicted, that he would spend five years in prison. But the US was never going to let the Manning fiasco go unpunished. Manning spent time in prison for it, and now so will Assange. We can debate whether or not what Assange did was right or wrong, but dumping thousands of unredacted cables without concern for the lives that might be put in jeopardy, not to mention the necessity of US diplomats needing to report observations and interactions back to the State Department without fear of reprisal, makes me think the way Wikileaks handled it was grossly negligent, and should be punished.

Re:I hope they just let him go

[squiggleslash]

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.

BBC are pissing me off

[Cederic]

In depth analysis of the political situation surrounding his arrest, endless exploration of whether he'll be extradited to the US, complex discussions on why the police were permitted to enter the embassy to arrest him.

Not a single fucking mention of his cat.

What's happening to the cat! Come on BBC, step up, help us with the important question here.

The Empire strikes back

[astrofurter]

Freedom is dangerous. Big Brother will save us from Freedom. Because Big Brother loves us all.

Re: "No one is above the law."

[Cederic]

I know your pseudonym damages your credibility but perhaps you could at least fucking explain just what the fuck you think is wrong with 'nobody is above the law'.

Do you think Assange should be free to break any and all laws he chooses?
Do you think the British police should ignore him breaking the law?
Do you have evidence that the law is being inappropriately applied?
Are you just being a cunt?

The last question is rhetorical.

Re:After being evicted from Ecuador's embassy

[Zocalo]

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.

Pathetic

[bradley13]

Assange did good work with Wikileaks, years ago. Then he grew an inflated ego, and (um, literally) screwed around. Rather than face any charges (which, iirc, were never formally filed), he fled.

Ultimately, he imprisoned himself for 8 long years.

I have no idea whether the US would have tried to extradite him from Sweden. Maybe they would have, if Sweden had actually charged him with a crime. But in the meantime, the Swedish case has ended. And the UK can't charge him with much more than skipping a court appearance, which is pretty trivial. He should have long since left the embassy.

And now this. Ecuador has finally had enough, and tells him to leave. Rather than acting like an adult, and walking out with some dignity, he has to be carried out like a child throwing a tantrum. Pathetic.

Re:Pathetic

[Theaetetus]

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.

Re:Ley's see what will happen

[mrbester]

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.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[dwillden]

Nobody with half a brain accused him of Treason. He's not a US citizen, he can't commit treason against the US, he has no expectation of loyalty to it. Not even for releasing the footage of the lawful Apache combat actions. (The actions in the footage are not crimes under the Laws of Land Warfare as outlined in the various conventions.)

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. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.

The way it works is: If I have a security clearance (I did until it expired after I retired from the Army) and I give you classified information I should be protecting, I am then criminally liable for my actions or inactions that allow the security compromise and the release of the classified information. You however are not. As a US citizen there is a tenuous responsibility that you might hold for receiving but it's not commonly prosecuted unless you also have a clearance. But if you are a citizen of a foreign nation, like Assange, even if that nation is closely allied with the US. You are under no obligation at all to protect that information.

Now, if you directed me to collect and give you information, then you fall into the realm of conducting international espionage actions. If caught in the US you can be arrested and confined until such time as we trade you back to your home country. But more likely we would just declare you persona non-grata and kick you out of the country. If discovered conducting such activities in another country, we could ask them to do the same things and if allied they might, but they would not extradite you to the US. You would be subject to their laws regarding captured spies.

The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for. I won't deny that we might have quietly encouraged the Swedish government to press the issue and the British to make the arrest for extradition to Sweden with the intent of at least making it harder for him to run Wikileaks and leak secrets our own traitors have given him. But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.

Journalism needs new economic models, but...

[shanen]

It's obvious that journalism needs new economic models, but WikiLeaks is NOT one of them. Having read several books about WikiLeaks, I think the underlying problem was the lack of a viable economic model. There was a good idea under there, but it was buried so deeply and Assange got so far away from any form of actual journalism that the cart got in front of the horse.

At first WikiLeaks actually understood that the documents should be vetted to make sure they weren't being used to propagate propaganda. Also real journalism requires considering the possible negative ramifications of the release of the information, as when an innocent person might get murdered because their identity is revealed to a vengeful criminal. Multiple sources are important, too, and it is very rare that information cannot be verified by some method or other.

However Assange rather quickly decided it was more important to prioritize the releases of information for maximization of the value to WikiLeaks, including how the information would affect the increasingly important financial donations WikiLeaks needed. Fairly early in the process, they were overwhelmed with more information than they knew what to do with, so they were forced to start picking and choosing what to reveal, and when, and that is when Assange started tasting the poisonous fruit. Follow the money.

Solution time? My own proposed solution approach for the economic troubles of journalism would be a solution-based approach. The readers would be able to contribute to solution projects with the journalists earning a percentage for revealing and publicizing the problems. I think there would also need to be an independent entity (I call it the charity share brokerage) that would provide project guidance and evaluation, as well as handling the money.

Disappointed but not surprised that I couldn't find any substantive comments here on Slashdot, and especially not among the trolls' mods. Enough time for now, so I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.

Re:Edward Snowden quote

[Richard_at_work]

The "ruling" on arbitrary detention can legitimately be laughed at because its ridiculous.

The problem with that ruling is that it didn't just declare Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy as "arbitrary detention" - that might have had credit.

No. The ruling in fact declared that Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was arrested by British police to face the extradition warrant, several years prior to his abscondment to the embassy.

Yes, that's correct - the UN working group considers the judicial process of responding to a legal and valid extradition request to be "arbitrary detention". They apparently seemingly find the British legal system, which allowed Assange representation of his choosing, and repeated appeals to the highest courts in the land, to consist of "arbitrary detention".

Which is why the UN ruling can be dismissed out of hand. It's an absurd ruling, to say the least.

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[bobbied]

You don't expose Hillary and just walk away.

Not that he walked away. Spending 6 years cooped up in a single building in down town London is not exactly living the good life and has got to be a mental strain. Based on the video I saw, the guy has not aged well and appears to be a mental case now. Of course that's what his hosts are saying about him, that they didn't think it was healthy for him to continue to be under house arrest like he was.

I suspect that he's not really in all that much danger. He may be in jail for the majority of what remains of his life, but the last 6 years where not kind to him to start with. He may be much better off, though less visible in the years to come. If indeed he has mental issues now, he can get treatment. I wish him the best, but we all knew he was either going to die in the embassy under effective house arrest or face the music someday.

And about exposing Hillary... She exposed herself, (that's a mental picture I wish I hadn't seen) Julian just pointed it out like the little boy who said the "Look! The emperor has no clothes". Trump benefited as a result. So in a way, you can blame Julian for at least part of Hillary's loss.... (As if she needs any more items on her "it's not my fault" list.)

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, the US has placed an extradition request, as confirmed now by the UK metropolitan police. So I'm afraid you are wrong.

Re:Ley's see what will happen

[Frederic54]

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.

It wasn't me!

[Ecuador]

It wasn't me! Some impostor using my slashdot handle!

Re:It wasn't me!

[tinkerton]

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?

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[Zocalo]

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.

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[Patent Lover]

He was holed up in that embassy a good 4 years before the Hillary stuff.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[kick6]

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. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.

It's cute that people still think the US intelligence apparatus follow any sort of rules or laws.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[Anonymous Coward]

"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)."

Re:Edward Snowden quote

[Zocalo]

Not the most informed statement from the UN there, or from Snowden for parroting it. Yes, he would have been arrested had he done so, but Assange could have left the embassy at any time; he was there of his own volition having skipped bail, which is *a crime in its own right* in the UK legal system, and that's what the UK initially arrested him for this morning. That's an important distinction, because the UN is basically saying that Assange should be above sovereign UK law in the matter of skipping bail because reasons. Motivations for seeking asylum aside, he basically went from being a suspect for rape and assault to actual wanted felon all by himself, and at the very least there's a case to be made there.

I'll grant there are differing - and potentially quite valid - opinions on the motivation behind the Swedish cases and the US' extradition request (for which he's now also been arrested), but the UK's charges are about as black and white as they come.

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[Anonymous Coward]

And when I say demented, I mean he has dementia.

Scurrilous lies. I'd like to know the oranges of that story.

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[lgw]

I would become an actual fan of Trump if he pardoned Assange. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, but it would be a heck of a symbol that the US still has some tenuous hold on the rule of law.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[walterbyrd]

1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.

2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.

3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?

4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?

Re:What a clown

[tinkerton]

Sweden is interested in Assange because other people request them to be interested
https://www.theguardian.com/me...

Sadly this is wrong

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Re:Sadly this is wrong

[Perl-Pusher]

If I had points I would mod you up. You are correct the indictment is for hacking. Seems helped Manning hack a password for the SPIPRNET Though manning had access to TS Level information it is compartmentalized and your not just able to get data from the State Department and other entities. Assange helped him by providing information how to do it. Thus becoming a co-conspirator to the hacking. The indictment is floating around various news sites for anyone to see.

Re:Advocacy For Freedom

[ledow]

"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.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not wrong, in that they're not charging Assange with treason or with receiving classified materials.

They've made up charges, saying he "hacked" a classified system with Bradley Manning, and the two of them "hacked a password" as part of a conspiracy to retrieve classified documents.

Yes, seriously, Assange is being charged with conspiracy to hack a password. It's the only way they could come up with to extradite him.

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[MightyMartian]

Don't let a little thing like accurate chronology of events get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[greythax]

You know, I don't understand why more extreme right wing people didn't vote for Hillary. They typically say they want a strong president, and evidently Hillary is in charge of every intelligence agency and enforcement organization, even while not actually holding public office. Such that those organizations dare not even speak her name. Her power is so complete that she can kill people who she has never met, and force every news agency on earth, even fox, not to carry the story. She can run an international pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor and never even get investigated.

In short, her power to control the nation is basically supernatural. Hillary is the witch in every wardrobe. She is the horror under every bed.

One would think that kind of competence would appeal to someone all about authority.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[Registered Coward v2]

1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.

2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.

3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?

4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?

True. IANAL, but a more plausible charge would be a conspiracy charge based on his actions with Manning. His emails, any phone conversation, chats, etc. would most probably have gone through US servers as well as had direct contacts with Manning in the US, thus establishing a nexus and US jurisdiction over his actions. It's a tenuous link but could be what is used to bring hm to trial or at least get extradition. What happens afterwards is up to the courts.

I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[GameboyRMH]

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...

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[blahplusplus]

It's really cute that some people think that you can publish Secret documents from any nation

Meanwhile, Slashdotlawyers should probably read this https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/1...

Better call the DOJ to let them know that they can't do that.

People like you can't read between the lines, you can't hold a corrupt government accountable when they can make they can classify their corruption and bad behavior as state secrets. So while you are sitting their in a pile of your own festering stupidity unable to see through the lies of the corporate state, people with a brain know how corruption actually works. When corrupt people are writing the laws and making the policies, of course you're going to be "breaking the law" that's how corruption works idiot. The laws are corrupt themselves and can be made to mean anything depending on "who's guys" are interpreting them.

If in doubt just look at what has happened to the public domain in intellectual property law in the united states. It's been totally destroyed.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Those who said the US wanted him were called crazy

[green1]

Funny how many American apologists were all over themselves to scream that the US never wanted him in the first place, and that it was all just conspiracy theory that they were trying to lay their hands on him. And yet, the instant he's out of the embassy, there's a US extradition warrant waiting for him. Funny that, it's almost as if this was an obvious thing right from the start....

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[Immerman]

I'd go one step further:
Making an extradition request, having it granted, and having it be legally sound are *three* different things.

The UK and US have a long and ongoing history of collaborating to circumvent their own laws, such as sharing surveillance collected on each others populations that they're not legally allowed to collect themselves. And the US has already clearly brought serious political pressure to bear on several countries trying to get their hands on Assange. You really think that the only way the UK would honor an extradition request is if it was completely above reproach?

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[CohibaVancouver]

1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.

I'm Canadian and not a US citizen. If I hack into your American bank account from Canada and steal all your money I've still committed a crime and I'm still subject to US laws.

If American law enforcement figures out who I am, they can extradite me and have me stand trial in the USA.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[Immerman]

> Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?
We can. Anyone can. Capacity for violence is almost always the ultimate arbiter of acceptable behavior.

The thing is, once you enter the realm of "law by right of arms", the person/group capable of the most decisive violence wins. And unless you're a government with legions of heavily armed and well indoctrinated soldiers, spooks, cops, etc. at your command, that's not you.

And one of the first laws most governments enforce is "we have an exclusive right to use violence". There's some good reasons for that, as it disrupts what otherwise tends to become perpetual cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. But it also means that in taking up arms yourself, against anyone, you are challenging the government's primacy, and can expect to be stomped down, if only as an example to discourage more potentially credible threats.

Once you leave the domain of a single cohesive government, such as entering international politics, there is no longer any single entity with an agreed upon monopoly on violence, which inevitably means that the capacity for violence is *always* a subtext in any conflict. Which is why nations around the world routinely violate treaty and trade agreements with impunity when they no longer serve their goals. Refraining from international violence has nothing to do with ethics or morality - it's all about profit and loss. So long as it's more profitable for everyone involved to abide by a treaty than to violate it, the treaty survives. Once that changes for one of the signatories, you can expect them to violate it.

Just as happened when Russia invaded Crimea - doing so was a clear treaty violation, but a valuable strategic move (it gives them much more secure military access to the Mediterranean). They judged that the loss to the other major signatories was less than the losses associated with going to war over it (more profitable to everyone who mattered to avoid war), and so they went for it. And they judged correctly - the U.S. and others did the minimum necessary to defend the Ukraine as outlined by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty they had signed on to - sending a strongly worded letter. Of course that also means they sent a clear message to every other signatory that the treaty was absolutely worthless and they had better start making their own nukes if they wanted a real deterrent, but apparently the threat of more 2-bit nuclear powers arising in order to defend themselves was considered a more acceptable price to pay than war.

Re:NY Times releases classified leaks all the time

[Anubis IV]

There are several big differences that I'm aware of:
1) It sounds like Assange is being accused of actively soliciting classified data, which is crossing the line, legally speaking, whereas the NYT and other publications were not accused of doing so. They've received classified documents, but they don't encourage people to steal documents, nor do they walk their sources through the steps necessary to exfiltrate classified data, both of which Assange is being accused of, from what I can gather.

2) Whereas Ellsberg (and Snowden) did his due diligence by raising concerns with his superiors in an attempt to resolve the issues internally before going public, Manning made no such attempt. Likewise, whereas there were specific concerns that Ellsberg (and Snowden) hoped could be resolved by making those concerns public, Manning seemingly had no awareness of the contents of the data he exfiltrated, nor of any specific threat to the public's wellbeing. Those distinctions are both legally and morally important when drawing the line between "whistleblowers" and "leakers". Whistleblowing is a final step that is taken in the public interest in response to a specific threat after all other avenues have been exhausted. Leaking is something that anyone can do at any time for any reason. As such there are good reasons why the one is (at least somewhat) protected, while the other is not.

3) The NYT (and the multitude of other papers that published content from the Papers, as well as those reporting on Snowden's data) exercised editorial discretion in what they actually published. It's estimated that they only printed 5% of the Papers' actual contents. In contrast, wantonly dumping classified leaks online without fully vetting them, as Wikileaks has done numerous times with Manning's data, demonstrates a gross disregard for the lives, safety, and property of those who may be affected. Legally, this may or may not make a difference (I don't know either way), but morally it's reprehensible.

All of which is to say, while I think that Assange and Wikileaks have acted reprehensibly, I also think the world needs something like Wikileaks, or at the very least a free and unrestrained press. Likewise, while I think that Manning failed to do his duty both as a service member and a "whistleblower", I think there are others who have faithfully fulfilled their legal and/or moral obligations, such as Ellsberg and quite possibly Snowden.

Re:Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[jeff4747]

"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.

Re: Wow. So Hillary is the entire DoD???

[CohibaVancouver]

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.)

Re:Gonna Learn the Hard Way

[PopeRatzo]

If you're going to blame this on Trump, at least have the self-awareness to also put blame on Obama for not exactly being helpful to Assange, either.

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.

I think it's still a conspiracy

[rsilvergun]

I just don't think Hilary had much to do with it. We all forget how much Wikileaks did before Hilary because he helped give us Trump. But Assange leaked mountains of documents from the wealthiest people on Earth. There was no scenario where he got away with that in the current oligarchy. The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy. She never once threatened to upset their apple carts. What doomed Assange was getting on the bad side of people with unlimited access to money and power. That he escaped them for as long as he did is a minor miracle.