Assange wanted on new charges; Espionage (US) and rape (Swe)

[Ifreann]

Yes, oh my god yes, this!

Applauding US casualty lists is my favorite pastime. Might also make some decent money by doing business with people in opposing nations.

Yes, historically, everyone going to war with each other has worked out great. Just ask Europe.

How dare you impugn our proud history! This means war!

[The New California Republic]

A shame. I was wanting him to be in there for decades.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Not surprising.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I stand corrected. As long as Trump keeps his big stupid mouth shut.

I mean. Trump liked assange last I heard.

Trump showing loyalty to someone? Pull the other one.

[Gormwood]

I mean. Trump liked assange last I heard.

Trump showing loyalty to someone? Pull the other one.

If Putin asks with sad puppy eyes then Trump might.

[Alvecia]

Trump showing loyalty to someone? Pull the other one.

If Putin asks with sad puppy eyes then Trump might.

Trump will roll over to anyone who strokes his ego or pulls on his purse strings.

[Gravlen]

Assange found guilty, failing to surrender.

He faces up to 12 months.

[Grimmsland]

WikiLeaks founder arrested for alleged breach of bail at London embassy where he took refuge for seven years

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/11/julian-assange-arrested-at-ecuadorian-embassy-wikileaks

Assange arrested following the withdrawal of asylum by the Ecuadorian government

https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates

Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at the Embassy of Ecuador, Hans Crescent, SW1 on a warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 29 June 2012, for failing to surrender to the court.
He has been taken into custody at a central London police station where he will remain, before being presented before Westminster Magistrates' Court as soon as is possible.
The MPS had a duty to execute the warrant, on behalf of Westminster Magistrates' Court, and was invited into the embassy by the Ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

http://news.met.police.uk/news/arrest-update-sw1-365526


Obviously a breaking story, but the question of extradition may now be relevant.

Should Assange be extradited to the US if they request it?
Should Assange be extradited to Sweden if they request it?

I think no and yes, respectively.

No and yes too.
Could cause a bit of political wrangling but at this stage just let the Swedes have him.

Agreed.

[Gravlen]

Welp, the sealed indictment was real.

The indictment against Assange has now been unsealed by federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia, in Alexandria, just across the Potomac river from Washington DC.

It alleges Assange was involved in a computer hacking conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former army intelligence analyst, to crack a defence department password. Cracking that password allowed Manning to log on to a secret government computer network under another username and so cover her tracks when she leaked a vast trove of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks.

Assange is accused of “actively encouraging” Manning to provide more information. According to the indictment, when Manning told him that she had sent WikiLeaks all she had, Assange replied: “Curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

This has been in the works for a few months at least. The eastern Virginia prosecutors, who are likely to be taking the lead because theirs is the nearest federal court to the Pentagon, let slip that Assange had had been criminally charged under seal in November, when they wrote his name on the wrong court docket.

[Internationalist Bastard]

At this point my view on the matter is so topsy turvy I don’t know what I think

[The Archregimancy]

Welp, the sealed indictment was real.

It was both A) real, as claimed by Assange supporters (though only since November 2018, mind), and B) not remotely as draconian as claimed by Assange supporters.

Here's the full unsealed indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wi ... conspiracy

Key quote on sentencing, with important bit underlined:

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

An absolute maximum of five years? And likely less? He spent more time than that functionally incarcerated in the embassy; which makes the last seven years seem even more farcical.


Also note that, if the allegations in the indictment are true, the latter seems to explode the contention that there was no direct cooperation between Assange and Manning.

The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications. Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.

During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.” To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

[Erythrean Thebes]

How exciting, the world's first cyber-conspiracy trial for a wood elf

[Novus America]

Thanks. Cutting it close, but still a little while then.

AFP reports that the lawyer for one of the Swedish Assange accuser urges prosecution to reopen rape case.

The thing is that it might be too close. If they start an extradition proceeding, and Assange fights it, they might not get him to Sweden in time. The Swedish prosecutors might therefor, with that in mind, decide it's not worth the effort. We'll see.

If Britain agrees could they not interview him while he is in British custody?

[Gravlen]

Welp, the sealed indictment was real.

It was both A) real, as claimed by Assange supporters (though only since November 2018, mind), and B) not remotely as draconian as claimed by Assange supporters.

Here's the full unsealed indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wi ... conspiracy

Key quote on sentencing, with important bit underlined:

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

An absolute maximum of five years? And likely less? He spent more time than that functionally incarcerated in the embassy; which makes the last seven years seem even more farcical.


Also note that, if the allegations in the indictment are true, the latter seems to explode the contention that there was no direct cooperation between Assange and Manning.

The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications. Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.

During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.” To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

I haven't read it yet, but random strangers on Twitter (some of whom usually have good legal analyses) tell me that it's a pretty weak indictment.

[Gravlen]

AFP reports that the lawyer for one of the Swedish Assange accuser urges prosecution to reopen rape case.

The thing is that it might be too close. If they start an extradition proceeding, and Assange fights it, they might not get him to Sweden in time. The Swedish prosecutors might therefor, with that in mind, decide it's not worth the effort. We'll see.

If Britain agrees could they not interview him while he is in British custody?

Now? Perhaps. The thing is, though, they have interviewed him before, and I don't think they deem it necessary to do so again. What is pressing is actually getting him in front of a judge an getting him - and the swedish term for the next step in the process doesn't directly translate to english, but I'll go with the commonly used translation anyway - charged.

[Vassenor]

I'm looking forward to Assange being sent to the US. This didn't have to happen now though, this could've been done 7 years ago or so. Ecuador is an insignificant country, so there is no consequence if the UK barged into that embassy anyways. You have to respect the embassy of a country like Japan or Russia, but for Ecuador? I'd say they don't warrant respect. If the UK temporarily didn't have an embassy in Ecuador, so what? They shouldn't have pulled this stunt to begin with.

The weaker nations of the world should be told what to do and they should do it if the demand is from a stronger nation and it is within reason, that is their role. If they want to elevate their ranking, they can always go to war (if they can win that is).

Except that once you've set the precedent, no matter how weak the nation you do it with is, you're basically declaring open season for the "strong" nations to do the same to you.

[The Archregimancy]

I haven't read it yet, but random strangers on Twitter (some of whom usually have good legal analyses) tell me that it's a pretty weak indictment.

Oh look, I freely concede that I'm not remotely an expert on this sort of thing. You should definitely trust the opinion of people with actual experience of American indictments over me.

That said, five years? At an absolute maximum?

As I said before, he spent longer than that holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. It's hardly the kind of draconian sentence that many Assange supporters feared. It sounds more like an exercise in face-saving.

Let the Swedes have him.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

A sentence of five years after spending seven years locked up in the embassy would be quite funny.

[Gormwood]

A sentence of five years after spending seven years locked up in the embassy would be quite funny.

And that's if he doesn't get a pardon.

[Vassenor]

A sentence of five years after spending seven years locked up in the embassy would be quite funny.

And that's if he doesn't get a pardon.

Given the involvement of WikiLeaks in the DNC hacks, he probably will.

[Ifreann]

I haven't read it yet, but random strangers on Twitter (some of whom usually have good legal analyses) tell me that it's a pretty weak indictment.

Oh look, I freely concede that I'm not remotely an expert on this sort of thing. You should definitely trust the opinion of people with actual experience of American indictments over me.

That said, five years? At an absolute maximum?

As I said before, he spent longer than that holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. It's hardly the kind of draconian sentence that many Assange supporters feared. It sounds more like an exercise in face-saving.

Let the Swedes have him.

I wonder if American prosecutors did that on purpose. Discredit Assange by only throwing the smallest, softest book at him.

[The Emerald Legion]

Oh look, I freely concede that I'm not remotely an expert on this sort of thing. You should definitely trust the opinion of people with actual experience of American indictments over me.

That said, five years? At an absolute maximum?

As I said before, he spent longer than that holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. It's hardly the kind of draconian sentence that many Assange supporters feared. It sounds more like an exercise in face-saving.

Let the Swedes have him.

I wonder if American prosecutors did that on purpose. Discredit Assange by only throwing the smallest, softest book at him.

Pure tinfoil hat here.

What if the charges are only an excuse to get him to the USA where he can then be pardoned and released?

[Ifreann]

I wonder if American prosecutors did that on purpose. Discredit Assange by only throwing the smallest, softest book at him.

Pure tinfoil hat here.

What if the charges are only an excuse to get him to the USA where he can then be pardoned and released?

And then America refuses extradition to Sweden or back to the UK.

[Gormwood]

Pure tinfoil hat here.

What if the charges are only an excuse to get him to the USA where he can then be pardoned and released?

And then America refuses extradition to Sweden or back to the UK.

Assange is then awarded the Medal of Freedom and gets to pull the lever on the gallows Hillary Clinton is standing on.

[Galloism]

The weaker nations of the world should be told what to do and they should do it if the demand is from a stronger nation and it is within reason, that is their role. If they want to elevate their ranking, they can always go to war (if they can win that is).

And this kind of reasoning, and the cheek in telling it, is exactly why people like America so much and absofuckinglutely no one would ever love to smash some USian head. Ever.

I hear tell the Carabinieri like to do that sort of thing, if that's your general predilection.