How dare you impugn our proud history! This means war!
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:37 am
by AhmadiMuslim1889 » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:40 am
by An Alan Smithee Nation » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:45 am
by Gormwood » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:52 am
by Grimmsland » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:59 am
Shamhnan Insir wrote:Gravlen wrote: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-wikileaksAssange 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-updatesJulian 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.
by Gravlen » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:00 am
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.
by Internationalist Bastard » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:09 am
by The Archregimancy » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:21 am
Gravlen wrote:Welp, the sealed indictment was real.
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.
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.”
by Erythrean Thebes » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:33 am
by Novus America » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:35 am
Gravlen wrote:Alvecia wrote: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.
by Gravlen » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:05 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Gravlen wrote: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.”
by Gravlen » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:09 am
Novus America wrote:Gravlen wrote:
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?
by Vassenor » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:14 am
Saiwania wrote: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).
by The Archregimancy » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:20 am
Gravlen wrote: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.
by An Alan Smithee Nation » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:22 am
by Gormwood » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:23 am
An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:A sentence of five years after spending seven years locked up in the embassy would be quite funny.
by Vassenor » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:26 am
by Ifreann » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:34 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Gravlen wrote: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.
by The Emerald Legion » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:36 am
Ifreann wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
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.
by Gormwood » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:39 am
by Galloism » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:39 am
Risottia wrote:Saiwania wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Giovanniland, Juristonia, Neu California, New haven america, Nu Elysium, Shrillland
Advertisement