
Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues - tysone
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indicted-espionage-act-first-amendment.html
======
dontbenebby
This is troubling since the courts have also argued lawsuits over illegal
wiretapping and other misconduct cannot move forward as they would... expose
classified information:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-
legality-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-legality-nsa-
mass-spying-citing-secrecy-claims)

Without the ability for the press to publicize illegal actions so that voters
can remove officials who allow it, the US government can engage in
unconstitutional conduct with almost zero oversight by making the illegal
conduct classified.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
I would argue that this is the intended outcome. I do not believe we have
enough control over our government.

Edit: I guess I should add that a lot of people in the US believe it is good
for the US government to have absolute power in the world, because they think
it’s okay for “their side” to have absolute power over others. Often I think
they associate “our side” to be the side of the “good guys” and thus find our
grip on global hegemony acceptable. Except there are no “good guys” who always
behave in a fair and even way, that is a childish fantasy used to keep us on
board with the serious injustice perpetrated by governments the world over.
The US government is responsible for oppression and murder the world over in
addition to the good things we might do. We cannot blanket trust any
government to behave appropriately in secrecy unless we want to simply
abdicate our responsibility for the harm that governments then cause.

~~~
mcv
> _I do not believe we have enough control over our government._

And that's probably something that needs to be argued in front of the Supreme
Court. It is vital in a democracy that a government can be held accountable.
The government should not have a carte blanche to break the law in secret.
There has to be some way to address this, and at the moment there clearly
isn't.

Manning, Assange and Snowden provided a public service to the American public
by showing them what their government was doing.

~~~
bb88
The gold standard here is Daniel Ellsberg who sent the pentagon papers to the
Washington Post. Those were the documents that revealed that America had an
illegal secret war in Cambodia.

In short, Assange is no Daniel Elssberg.

~~~
mjevans
That's fine to say, but what does it actually mean?

How do we protect forces providing oversight and sunlight to parts of the
government that we the people really should know about to be informed voters?
How do we reasonably protect 'watchers', and how can we have reasonable
oversight of the 'watchers'?

Part of the issue is that there is not a clear standard that must be adhered
to; where does selection bias count as an editorial action and where does it
count as being an agent of a foreign power? If someone is a completely dumb
conduit that does not evaluate the data but republishes it without inner
knowledge do they have more or less protections than someone that evaluates
and 'publishes' the content (I.E. in technical terms 'the press', even if not
part of something traditionally obvious as a news organization.)?

~~~
salawat
Personally, I think this should be part of the duties of the Office of the
Inspector General, and the OIG should be shunted to being answerable to the
either the Legislature, or the Courts.

Of course, I also believe that OIG should be hounding the Executive
constantly, and have the authority and onus to declassify anything classified
as soon as possible too. That means that classification stops being a
privilege of the Executive, and instead becomes a maintenance item That
requires periodic review to reclassify.

~~~
mjevans
I believe you are correct in that the spirit is SOME official watchdog should
exist within the government. Even better some department for EACH BRANCH.

However it is also commonly said that a "fourth estate" (or branch) exists,
and the top search result that I get for that phrase is:

"What is the role of the Fourth Estate?

In the United States, the term fourth estate is sometimes used to place the
press alongside the three branches of government: legislative, executive and
judicial. The fourth estate refers to the watchdog role of the press, one that
is important to a functioning democracy.Jan 3, 2019

What is the Fourth Estate? - ThoughtCo [https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-
fourth-estate-3368058"](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-fourth-
estate-3368058")

The press should also watch the government, and the oversight branches, and
all of them should have oversight over the others as a completely closed
system that roots out any actions that are may represent impropriety, immoral,
OR illegal actions.

------
krustyburger
Charges like these, which such heavy minimum sentences should he be convicted,
are exactly what he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over
the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. It appears
he wasn’t.

~~~
gamblor956
No, observers claimed he was delusional to think he would be charged with a
_capital_ crime (meaning he could be executed if convicted), because that
would violate the terms of any extradition.

Everyone thought he would be charged with a number of crimes if he ever left
the embassy.

~~~
stale2002
This is such a rewritting of history.

Everyone was claiming that there were no secret charges, and we were a
conspiracy theorist if we thought so.

This went on for years.

~~~
saalweachter
I mean, our current information is that there _were_ no "secret charges" ...
until 2018.

So for 6 of the 7 years he was in there, the "you all are crazy conspiracy
people" people were correct, and only for the last year have the crazy
conspiracy people been correct.

~~~
stale2002
He only just now got out of the embassy.

The claim, all along, was that as soon as he is out of the embassy that the US
will bring out their espionage charges.

And he just got out of the embassy,and guess what happened? He recieved
espionage charges. Exactly as predicted.

~~~
saalweachter
The indictment leaked 5 months before Assange was kicked out of the embassy, 8
months after it was created.

It was, of course, the case that it was a sealed indictment and wasn't
supposed to be released at all prior to the individual charged being arrested,
but that is kind of a normal thing in our legal system; many of the charges
against the individuals prosecuted as a result of the Mueller investigation
came in the form of sealed charges, as another prominent instance of the
practice.

~~~
stale2002
> but that is kind of a normal thing in our legal system

Ok, well if it is normal then nobody should have been calling anyone at all a
conspiracy theorist for saying that the US was going to have an extradition
request the moment he stepped out of the embassy.

We were right. He stepped outside and now there are charges.

~~~
saalweachter
The DoJ at the time explicitly denied Assange being under sealed indictment,
which, if he was, it should not have.

(In general, the US government is not supposed to explicitly lie to the
American people, hence the "I can neither confirm nor deny" line that comes up
when an issue is classified; you can't say P, because you can't reveal
classified information, but you also can't say not-P because you aren't
allowed to lie in an official capacity.)

------
thomascgalvin
This is the most important part of the indictment, and it's right on page one:

> ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on
> information; (ii) provide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public
> dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and
> providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public.

The main charge here is that Assange actively encouraged people to break the
law. Since he wasn't a US citizen and had not signed a non-disclosure
agreement with the United States, many of the laws protecting classified
information do not apply to him directly.

The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which
Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if
someone got these classified documents for us." The next section, titled "B.
Chelsea Manning Responded to ASSANGE'S Solicitation and Stole Classified
Documents from the United States", explains how Assange's solicitation lead
directly to the criminal acts committed by Manning.

Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue
Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash
to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning
with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on
classified computers.

So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and
is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime,
which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual
(Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf.

You can argue about the validity of these charges, even the validity of the
classifications levels assigned to some of the material given to Assange, but
we should be clear about exactly what is being claimed by the government, as
well.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
This would criminalize a huge amount of investigative journalism in the United
States. Journalists who work in this field solicit classified information all
the time. They cultivate connections inside government, and ask for
information. They aren't all just sitting back and waiting for sources to fall
into their lap. When sources do come to them, they encourage those sources to
share more information. That's how the business works, and if the US
government wins its case against Assange, that business will be illegal.

~~~
gamblor956
The major difference is that journalists do not ask their sources to break the
law to obtain information. Assange did, _and that makes all the difference._

~~~
JudgeWapner
I'm not convinced that his source broke the law. At the time, Manning was a
legal agent of the US gov and presumably had the clearance to view
confidential information. The information he attempted to obtain was password
protected, but putting a password on a file doesn't doesn't make it a crime to
access it if you have legal secret clearance. The crime was handing the info
_to Assange_ , which was committed by Manning and who was prosecuted for it.

By analogy, an employee at a bank isn't a criminal for spinning the dial on
the vault. They are a bank employee, they have permission to work on-site with
the bank's money, be in the vault, and operate their teller station which has
the vault's money. it may be against the _bank 's_ regulation to open the
vault without authorization, but a guy on the outside asking a bank employee
to try a vault combo isn't breaking the law if the bank employee was
previously authorized to access it. The crime is taking the green papers from
the vault and transporting them off bank premises.

~~~
dx87
Just because you have a secret clearance, and the information is classified at
the secret level, doesn't mean you're authorized to view it. You also need to
have a "need to know", and considering that Manning wasn't given the password,
I doubt she needed to know what was in the document.

~~~
JudgeWapner
Oh, I get that. Unauthorized access is a violation of Manning's military
policy. But she was _cleared_ to view confidential information and had access
to other military networks. I contend it's not a crime for Assange to aide her
in breaking an employment policy, not an espionage law.

------
citilife
I still don't really understand how a journalist, non-U.S. citizen, operating
entirely outside the U.S. is being indicted for anything.

I understand he obtained U.S. documents and published them.

However, if I obtain on-the-ground images of the Tiananmen Square protests and
share them on Facebook with my friend group, should I be subject to Chinese
laws?

I don't live in China, I don't have Chinese citizenship, I've never been to
China. Should I be subject to Chinese law?

~~~
christophclarke
Yes, this is the entire premise of extradition treaties. If you conspire to
commit a crime in a different country, you are potentially able to be sent
there to be put on trial. As to whether or not those laws are just is a
separate issue.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition)

~~~
Traster
This is not a good understanding of Extradition. Extradition before the age of
the internet involved identifying people who had in the past committed a crime
in a certain jurisdiction and transporting them back there to face justice. So
for example, I murder someone, I flee to the UK, the USA asks the UK to
extradite me back. Or indeed JA (allegedly) rapes someone, flees to the UK,
Sweden asks for extradition.

What's at question here is: Given Assange was never in the US, how has he
committed a crime in the US and the answer is that the US has a funny idea
jurisdiction.

~~~
christophclarke
Crimes committed against the United States are seen as crimes committed in the
United States. This is an issue of sovereignty, as there is no (for most
intents and purposes) higher, international court to pursue the case in.
Therefore, the case is tried in the United States. It's similar to any other
foreign national conspiring in crime in the United States. They don't have to
physically be in a country to break a country's laws.

The country that the individual was in when the crime was committed can
certainly handle the issue and not extradite, however, generally these
agreements avoid that.

This existed before the internet as well.

~~~
lostmyoldone
If US acknowledged international courts, you could make that argument. But as
of now, the US doesn't acknowledge some of the most important international
courts, like the ICC. Thus the argument that there are no higher courts is
entirely bogus, as it is so by choice.

------
bArray
It really is a fucked up world we live in, where a whistle-blower exposing
Western governments for acting illegally is arrested and the persons who were
spying on people have little to no consequences. I hope these charges get
dropped, he has done and continues to do a great service to the world. The
West got caught with their trousers down and they just need to deal with it.
If you don't like get caught, stop acting in bad faith against the people.

I think Assange's self-imprisonment should also be considered in any
punishment, there's no doubt that it took a toll on his mental and physical
well-being.

~~~
zanny
The journalist that leaked the panama papers was murdered while nobody was
arrested for hundreds of billions in money laundering and tax evasion.

~~~
nikeee
> The journalist that leaked the panama papers was murdered

How do we know that he was murdered when he was anonymous? Am I missing
something?

~~~
e12e
I assume it's a reference to the journalist _reporting_ on the papers:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-
bomb...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-
panama-papers-journalist)

------
filleokus
I wonder what will happen with regard to the extraditions. Apparently Sweden
has issued an European Arrest Warrant to get him to Sweden after he has served
his current British sentence (for skipping bail).

EAW's are (apparently) different to the normal extradition process, and is
more streamlined and does not involve diplomatic channels. I've heard Swedish
law commentators say that the EAW would be honoured before any non-EU
extradition, if this was a normal case.

If he eventually get's to Sweden before the US, it will be very interesting to
see if Sweden will turn him over. I would guess so, but perhaps that's just my
teenage bitterness from the The Piratebay trial still lingering...

~~~
gsnedders
Precedence of the extradition requests is a matter for the Home Secretary, if
I'm not mistaken, and there are various guidelines to determine which request
should be given precedence.

Given the previous EAW was withdrawn due to the impossibility of serving it,
it is relatively likely any new EAW will be considered practically identical
to the original one and therefore the date of the original warrant used to
grant precedence. There's also the matter of statute of limitations: the
Swedish offences (one? two? I forget how many of the original four have passed
the limit) need to go to court in the relatively near future, whereas the US
offences have no limit as I understand it; this furthers the argument that the
Swedish request should be given precedence.

As for whether he gets to Sweden before the US, remember that he can then
challenge the extradition to the US in _both_ Swedish and English courts, and
Sweden considers espionage a political crime for which it won't extradite.
(Okay, very hypothetically extraordinary rendition has happened from Sweden
with some level of Swedish consent before, but for such a thing to be done to
such a high profile person would be… truly extraordinary.)

------
yakshaving_jgt
[Before Snowden]

People on HN: Of course the government aren't spying on citizens. What are
you? Some kind of tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theory nutjob?

[After Snowden]

People on HN: Well _obviously_ the government were spying on everyone. Were
you really that naïve?

[Before Assange Indictment]

People on HN: That Assange guy is a completely delusional whack-job. How can
anyone be so stupid to believe the UK/Sweden would cooperate with the US in
taking him down permanently?

[After Assange Indictment]

[crickets (for now at least)]

~~~
mcv
That's an extreme misrepresentation. Unless your argument is that on this site
there was probably someone who held that opinion at the time. But before
Snowden, many people here were under no delusions about US government spying,
and few people have ever doubted the UK's willingness to cooperate with the US
on anything. People only doubted, and still doubt, Sweden's willingness to
extradite Assange to the US for espionage. They don't do that. Sweden wants
him for rape.

~~~
monocasa
Sweden allows the CIA to just black bag people, outside of the legal system.
That's the fear of being extradited to Sweden; the UK doesn't allow the CIA to
do that.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-
Zery)

~~~
mcv
Not good, but also not the same thing. This was deportation of asylum seekers
to Egypt, not extradition to the US.

Edit: it's also not true that the UK doesn't deport who shouldn't be deported.
Just a random search result: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2019/may/09/revealed-fiv...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2019/may/09/revealed-five-men-killed-since-being-deported-uk-jamaica-
home-office)

~~~
monocasa
It wasn't deportation, because Sweden didn't go through their deportation
process. It was Swedish police watching while CIA agents black bagged Swedish
residents in the middle of the night.

------
vermilingua
So did he commit espionage, or expose war crimes? Let’s hope the courts decide
wisely, because this case will settle the question of whether governments and
militaries can be held accountable by their people.

~~~
auntienomen
It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including
Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information
detailed war crimes. Some did not; some of it was diplomatic cables, lists of
informants, etc. Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people
killed. Maybe we can agree to forgive him for the portion of the espionage
which exposed war crimes, but I see no reason he should be given blanket
immunity for everything he's done.

~~~
monocasa
> Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed.

That was all greatly overstated

[https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mccla...](https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-
may-be-overstating-the.html)

~~~
cyphar
In addition, The Guardian's editor (David Leigh) actually published several
articles (that WikiLeaks wasn't going to publish) _BY ACCIDENT_. He then
blamed the release of documents on Julian Assange[1].

In addition he published the password for a GPG-encrypted archive of documents
that were shared via BitTorrent _in a book_ and claimed that WikiLeaks was
given plenty of notice to fix the issue -- not understanding that you cannot
change the password of an existing file that was already distributed and
probably in the hands of the NSA.

[1]:
[https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=4818](https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=4818)

~~~
acdha
You’re leaving out that the file in question was supposed to be temporary (via
a server up for a few hours) and the BitTorrent leak happened later,
unbeknownst to the Guardian staff, when WikiLeaks reused the same password for
an insurance distribution.

Also, think analytically about what “probably in the hands of the NSA”
contributes other than fearmongering: the data in question belonged to the
U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask! (Or brute-
force it, in all likelihood) It’s everyone else who would be interested in the
archive.

~~~
cyphar
> the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA
> wanted it, they can just ask!

The US government may not have known exactly what the leaks contained, and
providing the passphrase gives cryptographic evidence that they were in fact
in possession of certain documents that might not have been revealed publicly.
So my invocation of the NSA is not just fearmongering -- the reason why
journalists may choose to not disclose something is for their own safety and
not just the safety of the public or sources.

Also, it's a bit interesting you assume that the NSA could break GPG. If
anything, the Snowden revelations showed that GPG is hard-to-break even for
the NSA (if not secure).

------
bb88
It looks like all counts were from 2010, and not anything to do with the 2016
election. [DOJ Indictment: 1] Much of it has to do with First Amendment
issues, sure. But not all of it. A large piece of his crimes were conspiracy
to access computers without authorization.

I'm not sure the Julian Assange hill is the one I'd die on if I was worried
about first amendment protection of the press.

[DOJ Indictment: 1] [https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-
release/file/1165566...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-
release/file/1165566/download)

~~~
ipqk
Julian Assange is exactly the hill I'd die on, because rights apply to all
people, even the worst. And that's how they start chipping away at them.

~~~
bb88
If you want to make sure (like I do) that journalism isn't criminalized --
then you probably should not label criminal activity as journalism.

~~~
e12e
Care to take a guess at what the password was? If you do, should we both be
indicted for conspiracy to access a military computer system?

~~~
bb88
You mean guessing a password on a computer system with warning messages that
say: "This is a classified system. Unauthorized access is a violation of US
Code punishable by up to 20 years in prison" ?

No.

------
mtgx
If the US government loses (it should based on the Pentagon Papers precedent,
but who really knows how the conservative-stacked Supreme Court will rule),
then it should settle hopefully once and for all that these sort of cases
can't be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

The US government has kept threatening all national security whistleblowers
with the Espionage Act so they take the 5-10 years in prison plea deals for
the past couple of decades. Considering it's very unlikely Assange will take a
plea deal on this one, I hope he gets to win, for all future national security
whistleblowers' sake.

~~~
gamblor956
Assange is not a journalist, and thus is not protected by legal cases
protecting members of the press.

(Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is
not a journalistic activity.)

EDIT: downvotes don't change reality...Courts have analyzed what makes someone
a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether
investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is
involved, they all agree that _analysis_ of the investigated/researched
material is required. Assange put no effort into analyzing the materials he
received; he simply published everything (except the Trump stuff).

~~~
Fjolsvith
> (Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is
> not a journalistic activity.)

Seems like main stream media in the US proved the last few years that they
were not journalistic by not making any attempt to verify the Steele Dossier.

~~~
threeseed
They absolutely tried to verify it.

And actually there aren't any parts that have been categorically disproven.

~~~
Fjolsvith
I don't think so:

"Yet, 10 months after the probe started and a month after Robert Mueller was
named special counsel in the Russia probe, Comey cast doubt on the the Steele
dossier, calling it “unverified” and “salacious” in sworn testimony before
Congress.

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page further corroborated Comey’s concerns in recent
testimony before House lawmakers, revealing that the FBI had not corroborated
the collusion charges by May 2017, despite nine months of exhaustive
counterintelligence investigation." [1]

1\. [https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-
may...](https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-
most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet)

~~~
threeseed
It was unverified and it was salacious.

That doesn't mean any of it was wrong. And again nothing has been proven to be
wrong.

~~~
Fjolsvith
And...we could say that nothing has been proven to be correct, either.

------
Tortoise
I suspect that it might be harder to extradite him on these offences because
the extradition treaty between the US and the UK, like all such treaties, bans
extradition for “political offences.” (See article 4-1) If he is extradited on
the hacking offence the US can’t also try him for espionage without the UK’s
permission.

~~~
gamblor956
Espionage is not a political offense in either the US or the UK.

A political offense means something like being charged with a crime for
offending the "good name" of the prime minister (see, e.g., Turkey or India
for examples).

~~~
lucb1e
How in the world is being prosecuted for publishing a country's dirty laundry
not the same as being prosecuted for a political offense... (Not saying you're
wrong, just questioning whoever came up with that definition and if we should
maybe change it.)

~~~
gamblor956
Well, for starters all the information that Assange published while running
Wikileaks embarasses the previous political administration, not the current
(Trump) administration... Moreover, Assange isn't being charged with
embarassing anyone, since American journalists do that all the time. Assange
is being charged with specific illegal acts that actual journalists don't do,
like actually trying to break encryption on classified documents.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Journalists do try to break encryption on classified documents, and Assange is
not being charged with that. The documents were not encrypted and were
obtained in cleartext from Manning.

~~~
gamblor956
Journalists do not try to break encryption on classified documents (because
the case law protecting them for publishing classified information does not
protect them if they actively attempt to acquire it), and that is actually one
of the acts Assange is charged with if you read the indictment...

~~~
lawnchair_larry
I did read the indictments, and they contain no such charge that i can see.
Which page do you believe indicates he tried to break encryption on classified
documents?

------
dev_dull
It’s amazing to me the distinction the government is making here with
Wikileaks. How many things related to the Russian probe were leaked last year?
Wasn’t it one “bombshell” after another? No problems there even though that
information turned out to be false but was plastered across every tv screen in
the country.

~~~
duxup
Reporters who reported on those leaks are largely in the clear.

Had they tried to give someone help someone " (i) circumvent legal safeguards
on information" ... they likely would be in a lot of trouble. Such as "hey man
here's how to hack Muller's computer" and so forth (that's a very blunt
example but it would qualify).

That isn't a line that gets crossed by reporters very often in the US. It's
hard to talk about in here as so few people want to talk about the actual
charges, but that step in assisting (or trying to) is the key to these
charges.

~~~
drak0n1c
Of course reporters are largely in the clear based on what we know so far. But
the DOJ and intelligence agency officers who selectively leaked information
about the Russia investigation and unmasked people to the press in order to
foment their own narrative should technically be prosecuted just as Manning
and Snowden were.

If enough insiders keep doing it and they all mostly agree with each other,
and they are the only ones in charge of initiating these prosecutions,
obviously they aren't going to prosecute themselves for breaking the rules in
the same manner they went after relative outsiders such as Manning and
Snowden. And they obviously would turn a blind eye to reporters they are cozy
with, compared to how deeply they looked into Assange.

~~~
duxup
It's a tough line to find there with what you propose. I'm not happy about all
leaks, particularly those that seem to intend to deceive / distort.

On the other hand it's hard to really draw that line when it comes to intent
for sure without shutting down all and any leaks, and leaks are an important
part of democracy.

Every government has to find a way to deal with them, and hopefully not cross
the ever moving line.

The hacking thing though, I think that's a legitimate line. How much Assange
did or did at all, courts get to decide that.

Leaks are just such a difficult area to manage.

------
idlewords
Here's a link to the indictment:
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqe9dXY6AT8NY2Cg_SWavj5RIzA...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqe9dXY6AT8NY2Cg_SWavj5RIzA2CWAV/preview)

~~~
mirimir
Also, as backup:
[https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-031.pdf](https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-031.pdf)

------
otakucode
I am primarily concerned with how the government establishes jurisdiction in
this case. Assange is a foreigner, and every single one of his actions were
done in a foreign country. At what point does the United States government
gain the authority to apply United States legal code to his actions? There
might be an obvious answer to this, but I honestly don't understand it.

~~~
henryfjordan
He conspired with a US citizen to break into a military computer. The
jurisdiction applies to the whole conspiracy, so Assange can be charged.

------
auntienomen
In case anyone actually wants to read the indictment (which for some reason
neither the Times nor the Post links to):

[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6024842/Assange-s...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6024842/Assange-
superseding-indictment.pdf)

------
Tharkun
We can only hope that US voters will end up electing a government with a
functioning moral compass in the near future. Perhaps said government could
end up pardoning the whistleblowers exposing the crimes of the previous
governments.

You could spend all day arguing whether Assange is a journalist/publisher, or
whether he's still just Mendax getting his rocks off. You could argue about
Manning and Snowden's methods. You could argue about every other
whistleblower's way of coming forward. But you can't deny that each of these
people exposed serious crimes perpetrated by the US government. Spying on
citizens, torture, war crimes, etc.

------
mLuby
Legal question: if Charlie steals classified files and gives them to Ann, and
then Bob gives Charlie $1M (no known connection between Bob and Charlie), can
Bob be prosecuted for post-facto "encouraging sources to (i) circumvent legal
safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to Ann for
public dissemination; and (iii) continuing the pattern of illegally procuring
and providing protected information to Ann for distribution to the public"?

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> The United States has asked Britain to extradite Mr. Assange, who is
fighting the move, and the filing of the new charges clears the way for
British courts to weigh whether it would be lawful to transfer custody of him
to a place where he will face Espionage Act charges.

Unfortunately, with Theresa May's resignation today (effective 7 June) the way
the wind blows is that Boris Johnson will become the new leader of the Tory
party and prime minister of the UK. I can't imagine that the US extradition
request will be resisted for very long after that.

Interstingly, unless the UK finds a way to extradite Assange to two nations at
once, this will rather leave the Swedish prosecutor who asked for it first
with a bit of an embarassing turn of events to deal with. I really don't see
the UK (especially the UK under BoJo) giving priority to a rape trial in
Sweden over an espionage trial in the US. One of those is much more
photogenic.

------
devoply
I said it before if the US gets their hands on him, he's going away for life.
Each charge is about 10 years x 18 charges.

~~~
willvarfar
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies)
to see the sentences of spies.

Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years, but it was commuted after 7.

~~~
Klonoar
Her commutation came about as a bit of a surprise at the end of the Obama
presidency. I'm not sure I'd expect that to happen here.

~~~
auntienomen
Given who she's been palling around with since, I wouldn't be surprised if the
Obama administration let her go to see where she would lead them.

------
colordrops
To see all the concern here in this community I trust to be objective and fair
is heartening. Based on what you see in social and mainstream media, you'd
think Assange is a demon who deserves no justice and that journalism/free
speech is not a protected right.

------
netmonk
Peoples talking about loss of justice. Do i have to remind that long before
Weinstein (but this case it typical), allegated suspects are found guilty and
suffer from irrationnal blaming and crowd punishment long before they face a
real judge...thanks to ww2 and Nuremberg. This is what happens when justice
system is more based on Public Relation than establishing the reality of facts
and make a judgement from it.

------
objektif
Its funny how some people did 180 on Assange very quickly after the DNC email
leaks. The whole point of auch leaks is you can not pick and choose which ones
you like and which ones you dont!! Some even claimed that he was a Russian
asset. This is really depressing.

------
chejazi
So many smart tech people see IP as an issue when in actuality it's not much
different from xenophobia stemming from blue-collar job "loss" in the US.

Accept it will happen and become better from it.

------
snissn
Any Australians have particular concern about their fellow citizen?

~~~
ggm
He is receiving his full consular assistance entitlements. They are scant.
What I think about him isn't the point here, what needs to be understood is
that he is entitled to help from the embassy, and though said through gritted
teeth, no Australian Minister for foreign affairs has ever said they are
denying him support, and have said in very luke-warm voice they confirm he is
being offered them.

They don't amount to much. They confirm he has access to a lawyer. They
confirm his state of health. They can't get him out of Belmarsh, or prevent
the extradition.

------
mensetmanusman
What good could this possibly serve to imprison him? Shouldn’t western
governments be spending more time supporting destabilizing efforts in
authoritarian countries?

~~~
entropea
>Shouldn’t western governments be spending more time supporting destabilizing
efforts in authoritarian countries?

No? That's for the people of the country to do, not foreign powers. There has
never in history been a government that hasn't fallen to its own people. There
also isn't an example of US or Western imperialist forces 'destabilizing' that
has lead to better conditions for the people of that country. Libya has open
slave trade right now while people die with arm floaties crossing the
Mediterranean.

------
quotz
This is very troubling. Very, very troubling. I really hope that the West
doesnt become like the Chinese and Middle East governments...

------
acoye
So death sentence is publicly a possibility now right?

~~~
maxlybbert
The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to make
a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually get
custody.

I’m not surprised to see new charges filed. But these charges seem very likely
to backfire. By overcharging, the US may well cause the UK to balk. I have to
assume that someone expects to negotiate a shorter list of charges, so they
started with a crazy opening offer.

~~~
inflatableDodo
>The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to
make a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually
get custody.

That may not be absolute, we seemingly have agreed to waive it elsewhere -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067)

~~~
maxlybbert
Thanks. That’s news to me.

I know that previous non-binding promises (which were then ignored; i.e.,
people were executed) caused diplomatic trouble, so I still expect the US to
make a binding promise.

~~~
inflatableDodo
>I still expect the US to make a binding promise.

Even if it is expressly told, in private, by the Home Secretary, that it
doesn't have to, even while the UK government claims a different policy in
public, as has apparently already happened in this other case? Also, the Home
Office could make an exception at the very last minute if it wants to. There
would be questions asked, but it would be largely moot if he is already out of
the country.

~~~
gsnedders
To extradite without such a guarantee is a blatant violation of the UK's
obligations as a signatory of the ECHR, as to do so would violate his right to
life.

If there's any reason to suspect that no such guarantee exists, they may well
apply to the ECtHR after any Supreme Court decision to extradite him, and it
would be unlikely that he'd be extradited until the ECtHR judgment had
happened.

That said, if it comes to light after he's been extradited any application to
the ECtHR would likely do little for him, though it would be politically
damaging.

~~~
inflatableDodo
Given this;

>'The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said a senior British
government official told him that this case was not the first time that the UK
had dropped its request for assurances that the death penalty would not be
used.'

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44921910](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44921910)

And this;

>'What ministers and MPs believe is that Mr Javid is attempting to smooth the
way for the Americans to take the cases by letting them know that the UK will
not, for once, kick up a fuss about the death penalty.'

>'In other words, this is all part of a deal. And some sources suggest this is
a deal with precedent, that this is not the first time the UK has turned a
blind eye towards its death penalty policy.'

>'The Security Minister, Ben Wallace, told MPs that it had happened before but
not while he has been in his job.'

>'He explained that little-known guidance to ministers, known as the Overseas
Security and Justice Assistance guidance, that was last updated January 2017,
allowed the Home Secretary to make an exception to the rule.'

>'It states "written assurances should be sought before agreeing to the
provision of assistance that anyone found guilty would not face the death
penalty" but "where no assurances are forthcoming or where there are strong
reasons not to seek assurances, the case should automatically be deemed 'High
Risk' and FCO Ministers should be consulted to determine whether, given the
specific circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide
assistance".'

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067)

There is reason to strongly suspect that no such concrete guarantee exists and
it is in fact entirely down to the personal whims of whomever currently
happens to occupy the Home Office, while the Foreign Office is busy keeping an
image going of something entirely different. As is tradition.

------
0x445442
I think this is largely a smoke screen and believe Assange will not be
convicted of much. I think Assange has key information that will be useful in
establishing that the prior administration used the DOJ and FBI to spy on
political adversaries during a campaign year and I think the current
administration, DOJ and FBI are intent on making that case.

------
thrwoafsdfad
> tool of Russia’s election interference

Now you know why 'lamestream' media is so mistrusted.

------
SuperNinKenDo
I really wish I hadn't peaked the comments on there.

------
mar77i
Listen to Eisenhower's farewell address and read up on JFK assassination,
about which Trump so conveniently blocked a load of material until 2021. How
much more important can the secret service be than the government?

------
dialoguediscou
Extremely interesting article!

------
jackfoxy
Way back before he holed-up in the Ecuadorian, well before his hero status in
some quarters tarnished from the 2016 election, I had this guy pegged as a
Russian operative. I'm sure he probably viewed himself as in charge.

The nature of espionage has certainly changed over the decades. We can't allow
free-lance operatives (more in line, I think, with his self image) to conduct
espionage against us. He's a legitimate target.

~~~
socceroos
For what reason? Lots of "anti-USA" leaks?

~~~
jackfoxy
It's fallen into the memory hole. See the current Wikipedia page, no mention
of Assange's ideologies from teenage years all the way through founding
WikiLeaks. And also no information doing simple internet searches. I'm not
motivated to try digging deeper, because, well...not worth the effort.

IIRC (...and maybe I don't) it was easy to run across allegations (which
seemed to make sense) of his ideological leanings...I think related to
hangers-on of the cult his mother got the family involved in.

That and his frequent appearances on Russian media at the time (8+ years ago).
People forget, and however it happens, information falls into the memory hole.

