There's a few avenues:
1) Publishing classified information. Easy to show that he did this but a very difficult path to go down when American newspapers do this all the time.
2) Conspiracy to commit espionage. Probably the most likely, this would require showing that he was actively working with someone to extract classified information. Just openly soliciting leaks to an email address wouldn't be enough, he'd really have to be talking to a leaker before/during the extraction of the data. Depending on the nature of his communications with Guccifer (The GRU hackers from 2016) they may be able to make a case on this basis.
3) Al Capone style / collateral attack. The US made it very hard for Wikileaks to operate financially. Maybe he did something that falls under the US' capacious money laundering rules?
Note that this case is fundamentally different from Manning / Snowden / Winner who all had access to classified information legally and misused that access. Due to the first amendment, American espionage laws are quite narrowly written compared to those of many other countries and while it is easy to prosecute people on the "inside" for leaking classified material to the "outside", it is much harder to prosecute someone for what they do with it when it's out.
(Edit: Well that was fast! Interested to see what's in the indictment)
Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.
Edit: Indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
Has he been arrested for skipping bail on a UK court warrant? Yes.
Has he been arrested on a US indictment for extradition? Also yes.
These are two separate arrests. It just happens that one was once he was already at a police station. http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
Edit: apparently the Swedish extradition is spinning up as well.
Does this signify something meaningful, such as a change of which legal basis the arrest is under, and thus a change to the rights he has?
(a) a person—
(i) has been arrested for an offence; and
(ii) is at a police station in consequence of that arrest; and
(b) it appears to a constable that, if he were released from that arrest, he would be liable to arrest for some other offence,
he shall be arrested for that other offence.
Snowden: The weakness of the US charge against Assange is shocking. The allegation he tried (and failed?) to help crack a password during their world-famous reporting has been public for nearly a decade: it is the count Obama's DOJ refused to charge, saying it endangered journalism.
It's not at all obvious which faction initiated the extradition request, or for what purpose.
It's possible this is to pressure Assange to provide evidence in the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election.
It's also possible this is an attempt to sequester him to prevent disclosure of information about those events.
A third possibility is that this is an attack on the press.
Even without a conviction, it will have a chilling effect on journalists publishing classified information, which is not currently a crime.
With a conviction, it will establish a dark new precedent that criminalizes much of the most consequential reporting.
And that would not be irony, it would be tragedy.
One of the few consistencies I've seen in my lifetime across all major US Government agencies is that they seem to hold grudges forever. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, DOJ, IRS or SEC. Assange, out there, is a persistent waving defiance of their perceived power and reach (and worse, right in the US sphere of influence).
The anecdote he shared was a fugitive fled to Saudi Arabia. Over a decade and a half, the fugitive grew a small business empire and was well-connected. In tandem with allies in Saudi Arabia, the FBI arranged a lavish party on a yacht to which their target was invited. The yacht sailed out to international waters and FBI agents apprehended him and put him on a Navy cruiser out at sea.
The FBI often refers cases with single digit millions in losses to state and local, because the SAs are busy with bigger cases.
He likely made the situation worse by hiding out in the embassy---he became a symbol of something untouchable by American power, and this administration cares more about that sort of perception than the previous one.
Regardless of which side is in power.
Sweden has pretty much zero credibility when it comes to extraditions requested by the US: https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
The original comment said "administration", not "government". The current administration IS largely a monolith, given that nearly every high-level cabinet appointee has either been unqualified for the role or are ideologues who appear to have been hired on the basis of their loyalty to the Pres.
- Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser
- Scott Pruit as head of the EPA
- Ben Carson as Sec of Housing
- Rex Tiller as Sec of State
- Herman Cain and Stephen Moore on the board of the Fed
The list goes on an on.
Other factions within the US government are attempting to hold the executive branch in check, and it's possible that one of these factions requested the arrest and extradition.
At this point we do not know.
No one outside of the administration has the authority to request extradition.
That's an argument against the desirability of the charge because of knock on effects (or, rather, because of some other actors past perception of such effects), not an argument supporting the claim that the charge is weak. In fact, were it weak, it would pose little danger even if it was the kind of charge that, considerations of strength aside, would pose danger.
No, prosecutorial decisions are not, even in theory, made based solely on the strength of cases; while that is a factor, evaluation of importance (including cost/benefit considerationa), which are ultimately policy decisions which different decision-makers (and even the same decision-maker at a different time, particularly if facts pertinent to the prioritization but not the strength the of the case change) are likely to see differently even with the same view of strength of the case, are also a factor.
Plus, available evidence and relevant case law can change over time; even if the case was weak during the previous Administration the same case might not be weak now.
> Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense
That's not a matter of the case being weak, that's a matter of policy on which actors with different policy preferences will differ even with perfect information and judgement regarding application of those preferences.
> Or perhaps because there is prima facie evidence of a crime but First Amendment arguments could potentially prevent the government from securing a conviction.
That would be weakness, but no one has made a coherent First Amendment argument that would bar prosecution for conspiracy to break into a government computer system manifest in an offer to help break a password and actual attempts at that. A lot of emotional appeals lacking a specific argument have been made in that direction, but that's not the same thing.
Though it is also the narrative on russia propaganda sites https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-as...
TheHill is solid right (or maybe center-right if one views the neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party as center-left instead of center-right.) It's not “left-center” in any case.
The author isn't left-center biased. It's the opposite.
>John F. Solomon is an American media executive and columnist. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill. He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times. He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals
Also international left is still on his side defending him, but thd US left want to see him hung out to dry. Interesting split.
The so-called "New Democrats" (think Clinton, Biden, Kamala Harris) are surely who you are referring to; they want him crucified. The "progressive" wing of the left (think Ralph Nader) do NOT fit that description. IMHO as a lifelong Southern California resident in Los Angeles, the progressive left has more support among common people, but the Clinton Democrats have more support from the donor class. Hence, the media narrative of the American left is dominated by the corporatist dems.
By and large, people I spoke to during 2016 were not fans of Hillary Clinton, but had resigned to the fact the she would be the candidate by virtue of her wealthy donors.
Identity politics is still a big thing on the left, so the fact that Bernie Sanders, despite being an "old white man", has so much support from the common people speaks volumes about the shift away from the Clinton-era centrism
But to the extent they're credibly running for office, they're likely tending towards left-flavored authoritarian because carrying the banner for policies that will benefit some entrenched interests is how elections are won in the US.
You could look at it through the lens of positive vs. negative rights. The far left believes in positive rights (eg. the right to health care, the right to education) which require action by another party. If no party is willing to provide those services, the only way to guarantee that right is to force someone. Libertarians believe in negative rights (eg. freedom from violence, freedom from compulsion, freedom from taxation), which just require inaction. If you simply get rid of the institution, you assure the rights that libertarians care about - at least until some other institution crops up that seeks to infringe upon them. (Many libertarians make exceptions to their general anti-institutional bent to assure that no other institution crops up. For example, most support the government's monopoly on physical force simply to prevent some warlord from generating a local monopoly on physical force and using it to take away the freedoms from compulsion or theft, as long as that's the only purpose that it's used for.)
I'm not aware of any "far-left" party or politician in the US or Europe who says it's justified to compel anyone to work.
Taxing income or redistributing wealth does not compel anyone to work.
Indeed, it's right-libertarian policies that tend to transfer wealth from those at the bottom of the pyramid who work to those at the top of the pyramid who do not work.
It does compel, as you are essentially taking wealth away from people, therefore they will have work more to compensate.
Historical experience suggests the opposite.
My take with GP is the question of where would the various left wing anarchists fit in his explanation. Also, I would argue that the classical critique against private property that right libertarians reivindicate is that the state is actually equivalent to the warlord on the example and is inevitable of the concept of private property.
Unfortunately, 'we all' does not seem to include Mr. Assange.
Isn't he facing 10 years in UK for fleeing on bail?
Does US extradite him, trial him, (jail him?) and then ship him off to the UK to serve his time there?
IIRC it's up to 12 months for basically contempt of court / failing to surrender.
Edit: To indict someone, the government has to show the grand jury that there is sufficient evidence. It is very easy to indict someone (hence the phrase “A ham sandwich can be indicted by the grand jury”) but one has to acknowledge the fact that the federal government has very high win rate for the cases that do go to trial (93% in 2012)
Edit2: The above statistic is for the cases that go to trial and plea deals. Only 3% of the cases go to trial.
One argument is obviously that grand juries are pushovers and indeed would literally indict a ham sandwich.
The other argument, hinted above, is that prosecutors only move to indict if they think they have a chance to win at trial. Since the evidentiary standards are much higher for conviction, that means they easily clear the requirements for the grand jury indictment the vast majority of the time.
So more important than whether a case can be won at trial is whether or not a defendant can be pressured into conceding. And in many things it's generally not hard. Imagine you think you have an 80% chance of acquittal at court, which would see you set free immediately. Yet losing at court would see you serve up to 10 years. And the prosecutor offers you 2 years + time served, which with early release means you'll be spending about a month in jail. Even though you are innocent and think there's an overwhelmingly good chance of being able to prove as such, you'd be a fool to do anything except accept the plea.
In some ways I wish plea bargains were not a thing. It'd massively reduce our arrest and imprisonment rate simply because we could not fulfill the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial with millions of people in the system for mostly irrelevant crimes, and it would also avoid this sort of 'loophole' of allowing prosecutors to score convictions even when the defendant felt he would have a good chance of defending himself at trial but is unable to do so due to risk:reward considerations.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law#A...
No, there was an inadvertent mention in a filing made in another case which strongly suggests that there is an indictment in EDVA, which would have to be sealed because no unsealed indictment exists. The indictment itself was not released.
 EDIT: And now it has been and it is.
If anyone else did the same, they'd get the same result for contempt of court. While I respect her peaceful protest, what did she expect?
IMO, Julian deserves a lot harsher sentence than Manning, but what he's been indicted on thusfar, is pretty week with a max federal sentence of only 5 years. I fully expect the prosecution to use this to bargain with him for a plea (and info on Russian election tampering). Their dangle to him would be a whole slew of superceding indictments they'll almost certainly have him dead to rights on. Guccifer 2 has been proven by Mueller's indictments to be a GRU (Russian Military) intelligence operation. Stone, Julian, and Guccifer 2 were all pals. That's not a good place to be when you're in US custody.
They have "better" things to do than worry about some "peasant". Like their six figure pensions and lobbying deals
That's the "neo" part of "neo-liberal".
The government has historically tried to avoid doing so, but had to dip into the funds in 2016–2018. The rules around spending was formalized in 2001 , but the extent to which Norway was dipping into the funds has been controversial the last few years, with economists warning that it puts the country at risk in a future economic downturn.
Norway's wealth fund is actually codified as law, which makes it difficult for a future government to "steal" it.
We simply don't do corrupt to any significant degree. Probably the niftiest social trick the Scandinavian societies ever evolved.
Come to think of it, I was offered a bribe today, just a few hours ago. Turned it down without even thinking.
It's one thing when politicians steal for themselves. It's another thing entirely when they steal for their friends.
The problem with being a uniform thorn in everybody's side is you run out of friends.
If he wasn't biased there would be a lot more public support for him.
Don't waste too much effort defending Mueller. Just like with e.g. Comey who was praised before he was reviled before he was praised, alternate orders on Mueller will soon come through for you. The war pigs are not pleased with his performance.
No we don't. Stop spreading propaganda. Even if they were the source, there's no evidence that Assange knew who the source was.
> Read the indictments.
Indictments != convictions.
> Assange distributed emails stolen by the GRU.
Let's say he did. That does not mean he knew where they came from, or even that he received them from the same/original source.
Once an allegation has been defended against cross-examination in a court, it might make the transition to fact. (Or it might totally fall apart. I doubt the charlatans at Crowdstrike would fare well under cross. "You mean you never actually examined the servers, and just took your clients' word that they had properly imaged the hard drives before destroying them? These were the same clients who had placed similar servers that neither you nor FBI ever examined in a restroom next to a toilet?") You're probably ill-informed enough to think that court proceeding has happened already. To be better informed, you should read more reliable journalism.
There are only a handful of conspiracy against the US charges, and they are all related to Ukrainian interests long before the 2016 election (which were related to pro-US Ukrainian interests).
So yes, there are many Mueller indictments, but they do not fit the (now discredited) Russia-Gate narrative. Yes, Trump is surrounded by all kinds of criminals (and almost certainly is one himself) but this should be a shock to nobody -- he hired people directly related to mafias in several countries.
The Barr summary has been disputed by some of Mueller's team but those disputes are in relation to the obstruction of justice questions.
As for the Russian indictments, I'm not sure if there's much to say. Quite a few of the indictments are related to sockpuppet accounts and Facebook ads (illegal but not to the degree suggested by the tone of the media coverage). The ones related to Russia hacking the DNC were disputed by some research done by Bill Binney and a bunch if other intelligence veterans -- showing some evidence that the information must have been leaked by an insider because the transfer speeds were too fast for exfiltration over the internet. Unfortunately all the people indicted are Russian nationals and thus won't face prosecution in the US, so we won't ever know what the truth of the matter is.
Why did Mueller put on such a goofy show, when he knew all along he would indict no American for "Russian collusion"? He was throwing his friends in the media a bone. They've pushed this long enough to guarantee Trump's reelection, which is all they ever wanted. Ratings gold!
I've already donated to Tulsi. Have you?
Your talking points don't stand up to reading the indictments.
I am skeptical, and I've always been skeptical. You seem instead to be credulous. The topic of the day is bullshit, so skepticism is more appropriate than credulity.
Simple people imagine that "freedom of speech" is primarily good for the speaker. In fact, it's good for everyone in USA to know true facts about their politicians, no matter who publicizes those facts.
What would you say about this article? I have Little knowledge about Assange
My accusation of lies was about that, because there have been leaks of all manner of countries (Russia included) through Wikileaks.
As for that article, I have no idea whether Assange is a Russian operative now, or has been in the past. There are interesting links, for sure, and after the threats of drone strike and execution from various US government officials I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to hurt the US.
So I don't know if he is or isn't. He may very well be.
As I said above though, my initial accusation was intended for another poster that (falsely) claimed Wikileaks never leaked anything about Russia.
Too little too late there, Australia.
By your host country maybe (though I don't agree it's as cut-and-dry as that), but your home country will still treat you as a citizen regardless of your other citizenship statuses (except in the case you are a citizen of your host country). So they should still give you the same aid they'd give any other citizen -- and in some cases the UK has actually helped UK citizens flee a country even though they are a citizen of said country (examples include forced marriages of dual Iran/UK citizens in Iran).
Care to elaborate? What kind of benefits one could get out of it? There's tons of information on topic from biased sources like law firms, but very little otherwise.
In many countries you can't have two. But as long as "dual citizenship" is recognized, there is no upper limit.
Older people probably value choosing favourable healthcare systems too. Nations aren't static entities, I'd doubt you'd find many people willing to bet on a single country's circumstance being exactly the same 30 years from now.
For the wealthy gaining dual/multi citizenship is common across the world and plenty of Western nations sell it off willingly.
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.
Under some circumstances a journalist can be forced to appear in court and reveal his sources. And if he refuses to answer he can be held in contempt.
Not having it...not getting any...not even showing the undercover agent even one damn tab.
His charge ended up being "Conspiracy Against the United States" or something along those lines.
So I am pretty sure the US government will come up with some rather bogus charge against Assange, considering how he humiliated it.
At the end of 2016, the Prison Policy Initiative estimated that in the United States, about 2,298,300 people were incarcerated out of a population of 324.2 million. This means that 0.7% of the population was behind bars. About 1,316,000 people were in state prison, 615,000 in local jails, 225,000 in federal prisons.
Please...email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will HAPPILY let you see it all, because I've already researched it years ago when I didn't believe that was the whole story!
Might be better to privately exchange the name and then update us with the results without revealing any identity.
But until he proves that something resembling his claim actually happened (which he could easily do by telling anyone the name of the convicted), nobody should believe for a second that someone was jailed in Federal prison for "claiming they could get 100 tabs of acid."
I'm serious here...let's do this...how to best initiate what we need to get rolling?
The deal was...the rave scene was really big in Central
Florida in the mid 90's, and a Federal Task Force was sent to infiltrate the "scene" and start busting it up..my homeboy Mike was a hustler, pure and simple, and was always ready to make some money in the game.
There was a big outside event in the Ocala National Forest and Mikey was approached by someone who was asking about LSD (100 or 1000 hits I don't remember...probably 1000 now that I think about it)...Mike was like, as in character..."No not now, but I can tomorrow for sure.." and gave the agent his number.
The rest of the details for me are fuzzy at this point, but I do know he never got any drugs and he most DEFINITELY did 18 months cushy Fed Time with a "Conspiracy Against the United States of America" charge that you can STILL see with an inexpensive background check!!
Oh...i can't wait to see your reaction when you learn the facts of this case...in fact, how about a little side wager on it?
Edited a few times after proofreading.
Obviously Ecuador has no stake in Brexit directly, but of interest is the Farage connection: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/19/trump-russi...
People like Assange are fortunate to have visibility and nationality that they do. He at least is getting charged for a crime he hasn't really even denied. Thousands of others have lost their freedom and their lives because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
>The US justice department has confirmed that it issued an extradition request for Assange “in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified US government computer”.
(Some people at the time felt that this was not fair as the US test is arguably a tougher one but arguably that just reflects the country's domestic arrest policies being different. In any case, the UK refuses far more US extradition requests than vice versa. If you want to read 400 pages on this, the Baker Extradition review which also covers the European Arrest Warrant and the Prima Facie test is available online.)
and as context, albeit very long ago, I might aswell mention the most known case:
Along with the myth of not being "in" country X when you're in airside transit on an international-international itinerary through an airport there.
So by the dictionary definition of sovereignty -- "supreme power or authority" the sovereign inside the walls of the embassy is Ecuador, not the UK, since the UK has no de facto authority there. But by the definition of "sovereignty" applied to issues of land ownership, the interior space of the building is technically still British and would revert back to enforceable UK legal jurisdiction when the mission is over.
So really you could argue it either way.
If international treaty obligations block sovereignty, then the UK isn't sovereign within the UK either (!), since there are certainly international treaties signed by the UK which prevent the UK authorities doing certain things within the UK. For example, the UK authorities cannot usually arrest diplomats, regardless of whether or not the diplomat is in an embassy.
Yup. International treaties are an exchange of sovereignty for something else. The general public imagine that XIX-century-style nation states still exist, but they haven't for a long time. I suspect the USA's rhetoric of patriotism, especially post-9/11 exacerbates this view. Even the USA shares a lot of its sovereignty with external entities (gasp!).
The only XIX-century-style nation state left might be North Korea, FWIW.
That's an invalid pretext.
His "pre-text" wasn't that he feared the UK would extradite him to the US, but that the UK would extradite him to Sweden, which would extradite him to the UK. So he was fearful of Sweden, not the UK. You can say that this is stupid or even claim he cannot genuinely believe that and is therefore disingenuous, but unless a true mindreader shows up, we cannot know what he thought and feared, really.
True - I'd forgotten that part.
In any case - the case was reopened in November 2010, and Assange didn't enter the embassy until June 2012. If this truly was some sort of grand conspiracy to get him extradited to the US, I'd imagine the CIA has more reliable and straightforward methods of arresting/disappearing someone.
In addition to the above, EU law forbids extradition chains (Assange extradited from the UK -> Sweden, and then Sweden -> US) without explicit permissions from all involved countries.
Probably, but there are likely extreme hurdles to such "disappearing" of well known persons (especially those who are not universally hated). Having the technical capability is one thing. Effectively acknowledging its use in a mostly friendly, sovereign country is a very different matter.
Edit: yep, arrest warrant supposedly issued in December 2017 over his work with Manning back in 2010.
If the goal is deterrence, he works just as well as a symbol rotting in the Ecuadorian embassy as either dead or rotting in jail.
I assume you mean "extradite him to the US"
Why would Sweden extradite him to the U.S. when the UK wouldn't?
Either way, he promised the UK courts he wouldn't flee. Then he fled. Now he's been arrested for skipping bail. Good. Everytime someone skips bail, it makes it harder for innocent people to get bail when they are charged with crimes they didn't commit.
I don't know what he was thinking? Maybe he had memories of Pinochet not being extradited from the UK? Maybe he had memories of the Swedes doing the bidding of the US re:thepiratebay?
Yes, I'm sure many people have been "more tortured" by the US government (or other governments) than Chelsea Manning -- but it doesn't change the fact she was tortured.
He has also been arrested on the extradition warrant to the US:
A difficult path, maybe, but also an avenue for setting precedent to go after the press.
Don't worry no such thing exists, it's all conspiracy theories as they said for years...
Otherwise, couldn’t he argue in the UK that his rights might be violated by the extradition, in the event that the US charges him with something that isn’t considered a crime in the UK?
 I’ve been corrected; her sentence was commuted.
That may be a (relatively new) criminal argument, but there is also Manning plus 18 USC §2(a): “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added)
Plus probably all kinds of stuff in between.
Why would a government so keen on accusing people of espionage and no doubt wanting to set a precedent for various things being classified as espionage (such as leaks), settle so easily?
Well, because the charges have always been bogus and they know it. Daniel Ellsberg of the "Pentagon Papers" fame has made it extremely difficult if not downright impossible for the government to win in such cases.
If the US government will succeed in sentencing Assange, it won't be due to a espionage charge, but something else entirely, or at best, yet another plea bargain.
The Ellsberg case was resolved though when the case mistrialed because of prosecutorial misconduct so egregious it prevented the defendants from ever being able to have a fair trial. It was not resolved with any finding that any of the underlying charges were without merit, and therefore did not establish any legal precedent.
Because you've misunderstood the motive: it's not about setting precedent, it's about securing convictions for the people charged. Which plea bargain guilty pleas do.
> Daniel Ellsberg of the "Pentagon Papers" fame has made it extremely difficult if not downright impossible for the government to win in such cases.
For cases like the Ellsberg case , sure, but that's because of the gross prosecutorial misconduct in that case, not the substance of the charges.