6 ms·

What about the secret US charges? I honestly don't understand how in our democracy there is even such a concept as "secret charges". It just sounds mind-boggli

by Sephr 9y ago

What about the secret US charges? I honestly don't understand how in our democracy there is even such a concept as "secret charges". It just sounds mind-bogglingly corrupt and out of place.

idlewords 9y ago
The closest thing to 'secret charges' is a secret indictment. This is a normal grand jury indictment, except its existence is not made public. "Prosecutors may request a secret indictment if they are concerned that someone may flee if he or she becomes aware that trial proceedings are being set in motion. It is also possible to ask for one to protect witnesses and other people involved with the case. " http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-secret-indictment.htm http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-secret-indictment.htm
- CypressXM 9y ago
  An indictment itself means nothing. A Grand Jury either returns "True Bill" or "No Bill". In this case it would be a sealed "True Bill".
easilyBored 9y ago
They are not secret in that sense. Assange will know them when they are filed with the court. I have a feeling that there's enough material to put him on trial in USA and he has gone tit-tat with many three-letter agencies. They have a long memory and don't like challengers. Whether he gets convicted or not that's another thing.
sschueller 9y ago
There is a "kill list" [1] which is unbelievable on its own so I don't see this as much of a stretch. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Oh my god. If Trump would introduce something like that the entire internet would explode.
  - joshschreuder 9y ago
    "If"?
    - arethuza 9y ago
      I think the relevant part of the page being "Developed by the Obama administration beginning in 2010"
      - dahart 9y ago
        I'm not sure why that's the relevant part, but the part of the Obama administration responsible was CIA director Brennan, who was doing similar stuff during the G.W. Bush administration and just happened to give it an official name while Obama was around. It's nowhere near the first kill list the US has had, it's just the first one called "Disposition Matrix". Previous administrations had other names. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_actions_of_the_CIA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_actions_of_the_CIA
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    already exists for a long time.
- gadders 9y ago
  He'll probably be on Hillary's kill list, at least.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  > U.S. officials speaking to The Washington Post seemed "confident that they have devised an approach that is so bureaucratically, legally and morally sound that future administrations will follow suit" Wonder how much sleep Obama's been getting these days.
_fizz_buzz_ 9y ago
Do they really exist though? Assange travelled to the US on several occasions before the Swedish charges came up ...
- ttctciyf 9y ago
  I think the best indication that's emerged is in Comey's recent testimony[1] > before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey was asked why the United States had not charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with a crime. Comey said he had to be careful with his answer, because he did not want to confirm whether there were charges pending against Assange, but then responded: “He hasn't been apprehended because he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.” 1: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/james-comey-wikileaks-intelligence-porn-237932 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/james-comey-wikilea...
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Which, as evidence to that goes, isn't any. Comey can't comment on classified or open cases (which Assange would be because, duh, WikiLeaks) just procedural things. Which that was. It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that.
    - ttctciyf 9y ago
      > It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that. To me, the words “he hasn't been apprehended because he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London" strongly imply, in context, that the US has an intention to "apprehend" Assange.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        Well yes. We knew that already too. The US already wanted to apprehend him while he was walking around London before his Embassy period so it's clearly not a snatch & grab situation. He's not been officially charged with a crime in the US yet either so extradition isn't an issue.
matt4077 9y ago
Don't you need to charge someone with a crime for an arrest warrant (except for "material witness" and other shenanigans)? Because, in that case, wouldn't you want to keep that information under wraps in quite a few cases, and completely legitimately? Preparing to arrest a foreign drug dealer when he's expected to come to the US comes to mind. Just because it's "secret" doesn't make an evil conspiracy against democracy. The accused's rights are protected at trial, where the public cannot be excluded except in extreme circumstances. But they don't get to watch the investigations on C-SPAN.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Except that's not how it is used. For instance one person who was arrested, tried and convicted like this operated a UK based betting company that US nationals used to bet. Instead of going after the betters a secret indictment was passed which was then used to arrest an exec of the company because of course American laws apply to any business done over the internet... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers The general view of people in that industry was that it is A-Ok for Americans to gamble, but not ok for them to gamble abroad.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  I agree with all of this, but I'd note that there have still been some exceptional rumblings about Assange in the States. Specifically, the suggestion was made that by several political figures that he shouldn't be charged until after extradition. Since treason charges can carry the death penalty, and would thereby block extradition from no-death-penalty Sweden, it was proposed that he should be extradited to answer a subpoena (no legal issue), and then immediately charged when delivered to the United States. To my knowledge, this is pretty bizarre. It blatantly circumvents the intent of most extradition agreements, which is to only extradite where the crime and penalty are acceptable in the host company. Not exactly 'secret charges', since it made the news, but at least an open secret where a subpoena would be issued specifically to avoid normal procedures. (Of course, nothing ever came of it that I saw. I don't mean to claim there are secret charges, only that this idea might be what people meant.)

by Sephr 9y ago

What about the secret US charges? I honestly don't understand how in our democracy there is even such a concept as "secret charges". It just sounds mind-bogglingly corrupt and out of place.

idlewords 9y ago

The closest thing to 'secret charges' is a secret indictment. This is a normal grand jury indictment, except its existence is not made public. "Prosecutors may request a secret indictment if they are concerned that someone may flee if he or she becomes aware that trial proceedings are being set in motion. It is also possible to ask for one to protect witnesses and other people involved with the case. " http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-secret-indictment.htm http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-secret-indictment.htm

CypressXM 9y ago
An indictment itself means nothing. A Grand Jury either returns "True Bill" or "No Bill". In this case it would be a sealed "True Bill".

easilyBored 9y ago

They are not secret in that sense. Assange will know them when they are filed with the court. I have a feeling that there's enough material to put him on trial in USA and he has gone tit-tat with many three-letter agencies. They have a long memory and don't like challengers. Whether he gets convicted or not that's another thing.

sschueller 9y ago

There is a "kill list" [1] which is unbelievable on its own so I don't see this as much of a stretch. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix

skrebbel 9y ago
Oh my god. If Trump would introduce something like that the entire internet would explode.
- joshschreuder 9y ago
  "If"?
  - arethuza 9y ago
    I think the relevant part of the page being "Developed by the Obama administration beginning in 2010"
    - dahart 9y ago
      I'm not sure why that's the relevant part, but the part of the Obama administration responsible was CIA director Brennan, who was doing similar stuff during the G.W. Bush administration and just happened to give it an official name while Obama was around. It's nowhere near the first kill list the US has had, it's just the first one called "Disposition Matrix". Previous administrations had other names. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_actions_of_the_CIA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_actions_of_the_CIA
- ekianjo 9y ago
  already exists for a long time.
gadders 9y ago
He'll probably be on Hillary's kill list, at least.
nebabyte 9y ago
> U.S. officials speaking to The Washington Post seemed "confident that they have devised an approach that is so bureaucratically, legally and morally sound that future administrations will follow suit" Wonder how much sleep Obama's been getting these days.

_fizz_buzz_ 9y ago

Do they really exist though? Assange travelled to the US on several occasions before the Swedish charges came up ...

ttctciyf 9y ago
I think the best indication that's emerged is in Comey's recent testimony[1] > before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey was asked why the United States had not charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with a crime. Comey said he had to be careful with his answer, because he did not want to confirm whether there were charges pending against Assange, but then responded: “He hasn't been apprehended because he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.” 1: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/james-comey-wikileaks-intelligence-porn-237932 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/james-comey-wikilea...
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Which, as evidence to that goes, isn't any. Comey can't comment on classified or open cases (which Assange would be because, duh, WikiLeaks) just procedural things. Which that was. It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that.
  - ttctciyf 9y ago
    > It says nothing other than they have an investigation- well we knew that. To me, the words “he hasn't been apprehended because he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London" strongly imply, in context, that the US has an intention to "apprehend" Assange.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Well yes. We knew that already too. The US already wanted to apprehend him while he was walking around London before his Embassy period so it's clearly not a snatch & grab situation. He's not been officially charged with a crime in the US yet either so extradition isn't an issue.

matt4077 9y ago

Don't you need to charge someone with a crime for an arrest warrant (except for "material witness" and other shenanigans)? Because, in that case, wouldn't you want to keep that information under wraps in quite a few cases, and completely legitimately? Preparing to arrest a foreign drug dealer when he's expected to come to the US comes to mind. Just because it's "secret" doesn't make an evil conspiracy against democracy. The accused's rights are protected at trial, where the public cannot be excluded except in extreme circumstances. But they don't get to watch the investigations on C-SPAN.

jacquesm 9y ago
Except that's not how it is used. For instance one person who was arrested, tried and convicted like this operated a UK based betting company that US nationals used to bet. Instead of going after the betters a secret indictment was passed which was then used to arrest an exec of the company because of course American laws apply to any business done over the internet... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers The general view of people in that industry was that it is A-Ok for Americans to gamble, but not ok for them to gamble abroad.
Bartweiss 9y ago
I agree with all of this, but I'd note that there have still been some exceptional rumblings about Assange in the States. Specifically, the suggestion was made that by several political figures that he shouldn't be charged until after extradition. Since treason charges can carry the death penalty, and would thereby block extradition from no-death-penalty Sweden, it was proposed that he should be extradited to answer a subpoena (no legal issue), and then immediately charged when delivered to the United States. To my knowledge, this is pretty bizarre. It blatantly circumvents the intent of most extradition agreements, which is to only extradite where the crime and penalty are acceptable in the host company. Not exactly 'secret charges', since it made the news, but at least an open secret where a subpoena would be issued specifically to avoid normal procedures. (Of course, nothing ever came of it that I saw. I don't mean to claim there are secret charges, only that this idea might be what people meant.)