21 ms·

It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. It's actually not 100% clear that he's broken any US laws in any ways that they aren't also rout

It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. It's actually not 100% clear that he's broken any US laws in any ways that they aren't also routinely broken by newspapers. 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)

isostatic 8y ago
America could have just as easily extradited him from the UK as from Sweden.
- garmaine 8y ago
  He wasn't in the UK.
  - raaxe 8y ago
    He is now.
  - foldr 8y ago
    Extraterritoriality of embassies is a myth. Assange was in the UK when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. However, the UK authorities could not have removed him from the embassy without violating the Vienna Convention.
    - garmaine 8y ago
      Semantics. The host country is prevented from entering, searching, seizing people or persons, or otherwise enforcing its laws in any way. The soil is technically still British, but so long as he had Ecuador's cooperation, he was entirely outside the reach of UK law. 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.
      - foldr 8y ago
        No, the UK is sovereign inside the Ecuadorian embassy. The authorities are prevented from entering by international treaties that they've signed. 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.
        hopler 8y ago
        Sovereignty isn't binary, and states and laws are one of many social constructs. Discussing the complexities is interesting. Purely semantic arguments is not.
        foldr 8y ago
        I was responding to OP's claim that Assange was not "in the UK" when he was in the embassy. That's false on any reasonable understanding of those words. It would only be true if embassies were in fact foreign soil.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    He was before he ran to the embassy, skipping bail, on the pretext that if the UK extradited him to Sweden, Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. That's an invalid pretext.
    - rndgermandude 8y ago
      Why is that invalid?
      - OlleTO 8y ago
        He was in the UK for two years after leaving Sweden before he entered the embassy. Had he really been fearful of extradition to the US, why would he choose to run away to the country which (at least at the time) has the strongest ties to the US?
        rndgermandude 8y ago
        He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. I'll give you that the UK is a bad choice to go, but at the time he was free and clear of any charges. Only after he was in the UK, Sweden reopened their investigation, and at first reported him as a "witness" they'd like to interview, and that's what they based their request for extradition on. He wasn't "accused" at the time Sweden filed. 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.
        notahacker 8y ago
        He was obviously free to leave the country, but his lawyer was advised the case had been reopened 5 days before he arrived in the UK
        OlleTO 8y ago
- mcv 8y ago
  More easily. The UK has extradited people to the US on questionable grounds before. I don't think Sweden has.
  - PokemonNoGo 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... and as context, albeit very long ago, I might aswell mention the most known case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_soldiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_...
  - capitol_ 8y ago
    Sweden have also done this. Sorry for the swedish link but found no better: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna
- Mvandenbergh 8y ago
  Indeed. More easily because the US/UK extradition agreement only requires each country's courts to apply the same tests as they use domestically to allow an arrest. In the US that test is called probable cause, in the UK it's called reasonable suspicion. (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.)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
doe88 8y ago
> It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. Don't worry no such thing exists, it's all conspiracy theories as they said for years...
- monocasa 8y ago
  > Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition. https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks...
  - throwawaylolx 8y ago
    GP was probably sarcastic
- ascorbic 8y ago
  They were conspiracy theories when they were first made. This indictment was issued six years after he entered the embassy. If the US had wanted to extradite him at the time, they could've tried at any point in the two years that he was in the UK before skipping bail.
tim333 8y ago
> The Home Office has confirmed the US request for Assange’s extradition is for an alleged “computer-related offence”. (guardian) Update >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”.
djsumdog 8y ago
I wish Australia would step up and actually defend one of their citizens.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  Australia is part of 5 eyes. Very unlikely they will do anything.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  America's backward hillbilly lapdog? don't hold your breath.
- emilfihlman 8y ago
  'Straya would prosecute and send him to jail immediately. They are even more 1984 than USA.
- deiznof 8y ago
  Australia just released a statement that they will continue to offer general consul services, and that's it. Too little too late there, Australia.
- becauseiam 8y ago
  He is a dual national now, which only complicates any attempt, Australia's connection with Five-eyes and other military and political arrangements aside.
  - ShorsHammer 8y ago
    When has that complicated anything? Being a dual citizen is a huge benefit everywhere on Earth. For anyone with enough resources and time I'd encourage collecting citizenships like they were Pokemon.
    - steve19 8y ago
      Because usually you are treated as being a citizen of the country whose passport you are travelling on. If you flew to China and were arrested of a crime, you are much better off having used your US passport than the Malta passport you purchased, or worse, the Sudanese passport you bribed an official for.
nagVenkat 8y ago
There is a sealed indictment against him in EDVA which was accidentally released. He has been most certainly accused of breaking United States laws. 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.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > There is a sealed indictment against him in EDVA which was accidentally released. 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.
  - celticninja 8y ago
    US has formally requested his extradition so its probably no longer sealed.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Even if it were unsealed (and when it is, that's going to be a separate news storm [0], so I'm relatively certain it wasn't at the moment of the request or arrest), that wouldn't change the historical fact that it was not released, only indirectly referenced. [0] EDIT: And now it has been and it is.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  I'm not an expert, is this (93%) by conviction or plea deal? One would assume he doesn't plea guilty.
  - nagVenkat 8y ago
tareqak 8y ago
2) is interesting because going down this path would involve investigating the motivation behind WikiLeaks communicating with the GRU and what WikiLeaks intended to do with the information they obtained once they did so (just a one-shot dump of everything versus strategically-times leaks). The timing of Assange’s arrest occurring a few weeks after the conclusion of the Mueller investigation seems opportune albeit coincidental. A more sinister and cynical interpretation of this timing would be an attempt to wrap up any perceived loose ends. Edited a few times after proofreading.
- pjc50 8y ago
  If we're talking coincidences, I can't get over how this is happening right in the middle of Brexit, and immediately after the successful Cooper-Letwin bill to stave it off further. Obviously Ecuador has no stake in Brexit directly, but of interest is the Farage connection: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/19/trump-russia-inquiry-is-told-nigel-farage-may-have-given-julian-assange-data https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/19/trump-russi...
mtgx 8y ago
I think every single one of US government's "espionage" charges over the past several decades ended in settlements. 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.
- droithomme 8y ago
  > Daniel Ellsberg of the "Pentagon Papers" fame has made it extremely difficult if not downright impossible for the government to win in such cases. 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. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0511.html#article https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > 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? 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.
empath75 8y ago
I think the criminal argument is that he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence with the dnc leaks.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I think the criminal argument is that he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence with the dnc leaks. 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.
  - empath75 8y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg... looks like its related to manning.
  - zipwitch 8y ago
    You mean like, say, someone asking a foreign power to conduct a cyberattack on a US political party?
    - microdrum 8y ago
      You are referring to what Hillary Clinton and Perkins Coie did via Fusion GPS? Yes, exactly.
- jcriddle4 8y ago
  There is no evidence that there are any charges related to Russia. In theory it is long standing legal theory that publishing "stolen" docs is legal. Now I suspect in people's hatred for Assange they will overlook the fact that if this new legal theory is allowed to stand that the first amendment is effectively destroyed. The government will be able to label something secret and getting access to the secret is now a crime. Free to publish but not free to receive information. Catch 22.
kalleboo 8y ago
That was quick https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19633234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19633234 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.
notyourday 8y ago
> It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. It's actually not 100% clear that he's broken any US laws in any ways that they aren't also routinely broken by newspapers. He has also been arrested on the extradition warrant to the US: http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565 http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
johnnycab 8y ago
>It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition. https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks... Edit: Indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
- madez 8y ago
  For those who prefer the original source: http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565 http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
  - panarky 8y ago
    The actual indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481... 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. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1116336550873317377 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1116336550873317377
    - fixermark 8y ago
      If Assange gets extradited on a charge that the previous administration wouldn't push but the administration his organization assisted in getting elected is willing to (because they don't care about such a paltry thing as "endangering the protections provided to freedom of the press by the US Constitution"), it will be the highest of ironies.
      - panarky 8y ago
        The US government is not a monolith, it consists of many competing factions. 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.
nradov 8y ago
Regarding #1, there is no law in the US criminal code against publishing classified information. It's certainly illegal for a journalist to actively steal classified information, or conspire with others to do so, but just publishing is fine. 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.
- celticninja 8y ago
  looks like they are trying to charge him with computer related offences.
- idlewords 8y ago
  He is being charged with "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer", not anything to do with publishing classified information. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
  - heartbreak 8y ago
    Thanks for the link to actual facts about his legal situation in the US.
vectorEQ 8y ago
once he sets foot in US soil he's screwed regardless of the laws specifics, just watch.
idlewords 8y ago
The accusation is that he aided Manning in breaking in to classified computers: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
agotterer 8y ago
It looks like the US is charging him with conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/worl...
- d0ugie 8y ago
  Whenever the government Al Capones someone, which ought to be a verb, it's a reminder to me that due to a legislative and prosecutorial discretion excesses combined with politics that those of us who aren't 100% squeaky clean are unjustly vulnerable to judicial creativity run amuck. If you've got a Snowden or an Assange you want to lock up with all keys thrown away, stick to charges along the lines of espionage etc; and if you cannot prove those charges, too bad - don't attempt to railroad them for paying a nanny under the table. Not that there's anything forgiveable about nanny tax evasion, but I'm bothered by byproducts of affording too much discretion in the judicial system.
  - torkins 8y ago
    The alternative to prosecutorial discretion is 100% enforcement of all crimes big and small. In either situation, the government would go after these people for their small crimes so the outcome for the targets you're mentioning is the same. Also, Capone was convicted by a jury on evading (in 2019 dollars) millions in taxes, so 'small' is relative only to massive corruption scheme and murdering he wasn't convicted on.
    - mrkstu 8y ago
      Or, once a bunch of elites go to jail, the laws get changed so that only serious crimes are indeed 'crimes' and the rest get civil penalties in proportion to the means of the offender.
      - vkou 8y ago
        If US drug convictions against the rabble, versus the elite and well-connected (or even just black vs white) are any indication, you would get penalties inversely proportionate to the means of the offender.
mc32 8y ago
Looks like the indictment is conspiracy with Manning. Manning was pardoned[1] by the Obama admin. Does that have any bearing on Assange’s case? [1] I’ve been corrected; her sentence was commuted.
- jhawk28 8y ago
  Obama commuted the sentence. Pardon would have wiped the charges. Commuting just shortened the penalty.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Even had Manning been pardoned it would have no bearing whatsoever.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  the real question is, will his sentence be less, equal, or more?
cubano 8y ago
I had a friend once who did 18 months Federal time for just saying he could get 100 tabs of LSD at a forest rave in central Florida. 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.
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  It's very unlikely that the facts resemble anything like that. What's your friends name? I'll happily pay the Pacer fees to see what the charging document says.
  - whamlastxmas 8y ago
    Agreed, sounds like the friend agreed to sell 100 tabs. Whether or not you actually sell them doesn't matter, I think making the offer to an agent is probably illegal in the same way it's illegal to offer to murder someone for money.
    - sigi45 8y ago
      I can't imagine that this is a true story. Which country is throwing someone into jail for 1,5 years for offering to sell someone lsd?
      - mikeyouse 8y ago
        Especially Federal prison (most crime in the US is under state jurisdiction). It doesn't add up at all.
        darpa_escapee 8y ago
        If the forest is a national park or otherwise federal property, it does.
scrozart 8y ago
> 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. A difficult path, maybe, but also an avenue for setting precedent to go after the press.
- scottie_m 8y ago
  It really isn’t when you look at what he’s being charged with.
wybiral 8y ago
It's not directly about leaking or espionage though. The indictment [1] says that he conspired to help crack passwords from classified government databases. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481...
- PatrolX 8y ago
  They are in possession of some very specific irrefutable evidence, that's what it's about.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    This is ambiguous... Who are "they"? "Evidence" of what?
PatrolX 8y ago
It's a "done deal", he WILL be extradited. https://www.exaronews.com/julian-assange-to-be-extradited-wikileaks-founder-facing-five-years-in-u-s-jail https://www.exaronews.com/julian-assange-to-be-extradited-wi...
- PatrolX 8y ago
  Was 7 years self-imprisonment in an embassy worth it? I'd like to know how.
  - bellerose 8y ago
    Depends on the person, if they hold personal values higher than whatever the outcome may be.
  - stendinator 8y ago
    Isn't that a very utilitaristic view of an extremely political and morally charged topic?
seppin 8y ago
Breaking into government computers is a crime.
cparsons3000 8y ago
It sounds like the US will for sure extradite him.
heyyyouu 8y ago
Actually, no, US newspapers don't STEAL information, which is what he's being charged with. If you get it from another source and you weren't part of acquiring it, you cannot be legally responsible for it (it's not like receiving stolen property). But the governments case is that in statements to manning is that he was active in ACQUIRING the information. Therefore he can be held criminally liable. Now whether those statements are really enough to hold up in court are a huge issue, but it won't matter because one they get him here they can add on a ton of charges -- perjury, conspiracy, and whatever national security rules they want. But your point #1 is not valid in that if US newspapers did ever steal information they could be held criminally liable (they don't).
- umanwizard 8y ago
  I’m no international law expert, but wouldn’t the UK demand that the US disclose in advance everything they plan to charge him with? 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?
  - nikdaheratik 8y ago
    Assange, and his lawyers, made all kinds of arguments and appealed his extradition to Sweden all the way to the High Court and lost. He hasn't actually had any court time related to the U.S. extradition because he fled. I would assume that if he had a decent chance of winning on the merits for the U.S. extradition, he wouldn't have spent 7 years hiding in a cupboard.

isostatic 8y ago

America could have just as easily extradited him from the UK as from Sweden.

garmaine 8y ago
He wasn't in the UK.
- raaxe 8y ago
  He is now.
- foldr 8y ago
  Extraterritoriality of embassies is a myth. Assange was in the UK when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. However, the UK authorities could not have removed him from the embassy without violating the Vienna Convention.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Semantics. The host country is prevented from entering, searching, seizing people or persons, or otherwise enforcing its laws in any way. The soil is technically still British, but so long as he had Ecuador's cooperation, he was entirely outside the reach of UK law. 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.
    - foldr 8y ago
      No, the UK is sovereign inside the Ecuadorian embassy. The authorities are prevented from entering by international treaties that they've signed. 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.
      - hopler 8y ago
        Sovereignty isn't binary, and states and laws are one of many social constructs. Discussing the complexities is interesting. Purely semantic arguments is not.
        foldr 8y ago
        I was responding to OP's claim that Assange was not "in the UK" when he was in the embassy. That's false on any reasonable understanding of those words. It would only be true if embassies were in fact foreign soil.
- isostatic 8y ago
  He was before he ran to the embassy, skipping bail, on the pretext that if the UK extradited him to Sweden, Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. That's an invalid pretext.
  - rndgermandude 8y ago
    Why is that invalid?
    - OlleTO 8y ago
      He was in the UK for two years after leaving Sweden before he entered the embassy. Had he really been fearful of extradition to the US, why would he choose to run away to the country which (at least at the time) has the strongest ties to the US?
      - rndgermandude 8y ago
        He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. I'll give you that the UK is a bad choice to go, but at the time he was free and clear of any charges. Only after he was in the UK, Sweden reopened their investigation, and at first reported him as a "witness" they'd like to interview, and that's what they based their request for extradition on. He wasn't "accused" at the time Sweden filed. 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.
        notahacker 8y ago
        He was obviously free to leave the country, but his lawyer was advised the case had been reopened 5 days before he arrived in the UK
        OlleTO 8y ago
mcv 8y ago
More easily. The UK has extradited people to the US on questionable grounds before. I don't think Sweden has.
- PokemonNoGo 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... and as context, albeit very long ago, I might aswell mention the most known case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_soldiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_...
- capitol_ 8y ago
  Sweden have also done this. Sorry for the swedish link but found no better: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna
Mvandenbergh 8y ago
Indeed. More easily because the US/UK extradition agreement only requires each country's courts to apply the same tests as they use domestically to allow an arrest. In the US that test is called probable cause, in the UK it's called reasonable suspicion. (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.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

doe88 8y ago

> It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. Don't worry no such thing exists, it's all conspiracy theories as they said for years...

monocasa 8y ago
> Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition. https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks...
- throwawaylolx 8y ago
  GP was probably sarcastic
ascorbic 8y ago
They were conspiracy theories when they were first made. This indictment was issued six years after he entered the embassy. If the US had wanted to extradite him at the time, they could've tried at any point in the two years that he was in the UK before skipping bail.

tim333 8y ago

> The Home Office has confirmed the US request for Assange’s extradition is for an alleged “computer-related offence”. (guardian) Update >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”.

djsumdog 8y ago

I wish Australia would step up and actually defend one of their citizens.

rorykoehler 8y ago
Australia is part of 5 eyes. Very unlikely they will do anything.
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
America's backward hillbilly lapdog? don't hold your breath.
emilfihlman 8y ago
'Straya would prosecute and send him to jail immediately. They are even more 1984 than USA.
deiznof 8y ago
Australia just released a statement that they will continue to offer general consul services, and that's it. Too little too late there, Australia.
becauseiam 8y ago
He is a dual national now, which only complicates any attempt, Australia's connection with Five-eyes and other military and political arrangements aside.
- ShorsHammer 8y ago
  When has that complicated anything? Being a dual citizen is a huge benefit everywhere on Earth. For anyone with enough resources and time I'd encourage collecting citizenships like they were Pokemon.
  - steve19 8y ago
    Because usually you are treated as being a citizen of the country whose passport you are travelling on. If you flew to China and were arrested of a crime, you are much better off having used your US passport than the Malta passport you purchased, or worse, the Sudanese passport you bribed an official for.

nagVenkat 8y ago

There is a sealed indictment against him in EDVA which was accidentally released. He has been most certainly accused of breaking United States laws. 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.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> There is a sealed indictment against him in EDVA which was accidentally released. 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.
- celticninja 8y ago
  US has formally requested his extradition so its probably no longer sealed.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Even if it were unsealed (and when it is, that's going to be a separate news storm [0], so I'm relatively certain it wasn't at the moment of the request or arrest), that wouldn't change the historical fact that it was not released, only indirectly referenced. [0] EDIT: And now it has been and it is.
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
I'm not an expert, is this (93%) by conviction or plea deal? One would assume he doesn't plea guilty.
- nagVenkat 8y ago

tareqak 8y ago

2) is interesting because going down this path would involve investigating the motivation behind WikiLeaks communicating with the GRU and what WikiLeaks intended to do with the information they obtained once they did so (just a one-shot dump of everything versus strategically-times leaks). The timing of Assange’s arrest occurring a few weeks after the conclusion of the Mueller investigation seems opportune albeit coincidental. A more sinister and cynical interpretation of this timing would be an attempt to wrap up any perceived loose ends. Edited a few times after proofreading.

pjc50 8y ago
If we're talking coincidences, I can't get over how this is happening right in the middle of Brexit, and immediately after the successful Cooper-Letwin bill to stave it off further. Obviously Ecuador has no stake in Brexit directly, but of interest is the Farage connection: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/19/trump-russia-inquiry-is-told-nigel-farage-may-have-given-julian-assange-data https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/19/trump-russi...

mtgx 8y ago

I think every single one of US government's "espionage" charges over the past several decades ended in settlements. 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.

droithomme 8y ago
> Daniel Ellsberg of the "Pentagon Papers" fame has made it extremely difficult if not downright impossible for the government to win in such cases. 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. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0511.html#article https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> 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? 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.

empath75 8y ago

I think the criminal argument is that he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence with the dnc leaks.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think the criminal argument is that he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence with the dnc leaks. 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.
- empath75 8y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg... looks like its related to manning.
- zipwitch 8y ago
  You mean like, say, someone asking a foreign power to conduct a cyberattack on a US political party?
  - microdrum 8y ago
    You are referring to what Hillary Clinton and Perkins Coie did via Fusion GPS? Yes, exactly.
jcriddle4 8y ago
There is no evidence that there are any charges related to Russia. In theory it is long standing legal theory that publishing "stolen" docs is legal. Now I suspect in people's hatred for Assange they will overlook the fact that if this new legal theory is allowed to stand that the first amendment is effectively destroyed. The government will be able to label something secret and getting access to the secret is now a crime. Free to publish but not free to receive information. Catch 22.

kalleboo 8y ago

That was quick https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19633234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19633234 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.

notyourday 8y ago

> It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. It's actually not 100% clear that he's broken any US laws in any ways that they aren't also routinely broken by newspapers. He has also been arrested on the extradition warrant to the US: http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565 http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...

johnnycab 8y ago

>It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition. https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks... Edit: Indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...

madez 8y ago
For those who prefer the original source: http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565 http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
- panarky 8y ago
  The actual indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481... 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. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1116336550873317377 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1116336550873317377
  - fixermark 8y ago
    If Assange gets extradited on a charge that the previous administration wouldn't push but the administration his organization assisted in getting elected is willing to (because they don't care about such a paltry thing as "endangering the protections provided to freedom of the press by the US Constitution"), it will be the highest of ironies.
    - panarky 8y ago
      The US government is not a monolith, it consists of many competing factions. 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.

nradov 8y ago

Regarding #1, there is no law in the US criminal code against publishing classified information. It's certainly illegal for a journalist to actively steal classified information, or conspire with others to do so, but just publishing is fine. 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.

celticninja 8y ago
looks like they are trying to charge him with computer related offences.
idlewords 8y ago
He is being charged with "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer", not anything to do with publishing classified information. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
- heartbreak 8y ago
  Thanks for the link to actual facts about his legal situation in the US.

vectorEQ 8y ago

once he sets foot in US soil he's screwed regardless of the laws specifics, just watch.

idlewords 8y ago

The accusation is that he aided Manning in breaking in to classified computers: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...

agotterer 8y ago

It looks like the US is charging him with conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/worl...

d0ugie 8y ago
Whenever the government Al Capones someone, which ought to be a verb, it's a reminder to me that due to a legislative and prosecutorial discretion excesses combined with politics that those of us who aren't 100% squeaky clean are unjustly vulnerable to judicial creativity run amuck. If you've got a Snowden or an Assange you want to lock up with all keys thrown away, stick to charges along the lines of espionage etc; and if you cannot prove those charges, too bad - don't attempt to railroad them for paying a nanny under the table. Not that there's anything forgiveable about nanny tax evasion, but I'm bothered by byproducts of affording too much discretion in the judicial system.
- torkins 8y ago
  The alternative to prosecutorial discretion is 100% enforcement of all crimes big and small. In either situation, the government would go after these people for their small crimes so the outcome for the targets you're mentioning is the same. Also, Capone was convicted by a jury on evading (in 2019 dollars) millions in taxes, so 'small' is relative only to massive corruption scheme and murdering he wasn't convicted on.
  - mrkstu 8y ago
    Or, once a bunch of elites go to jail, the laws get changed so that only serious crimes are indeed 'crimes' and the rest get civil penalties in proportion to the means of the offender.
    - vkou 8y ago
      If US drug convictions against the rabble, versus the elite and well-connected (or even just black vs white) are any indication, you would get penalties inversely proportionate to the means of the offender.

mc32 8y ago

Looks like the indictment is conspiracy with Manning. Manning was pardoned[1] by the Obama admin. Does that have any bearing on Assange’s case? [1] I’ve been corrected; her sentence was commuted.

jhawk28 8y ago
Obama commuted the sentence. Pardon would have wiped the charges. Commuting just shortened the penalty.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Even had Manning been pardoned it would have no bearing whatsoever.
Shivetya 8y ago
the real question is, will his sentence be less, equal, or more?

cubano 8y ago

I had a friend once who did 18 months Federal time for just saying he could get 100 tabs of LSD at a forest rave in central Florida. 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.

mikeyouse 8y ago
It's very unlikely that the facts resemble anything like that. What's your friends name? I'll happily pay the Pacer fees to see what the charging document says.
- whamlastxmas 8y ago
  Agreed, sounds like the friend agreed to sell 100 tabs. Whether or not you actually sell them doesn't matter, I think making the offer to an agent is probably illegal in the same way it's illegal to offer to murder someone for money.
  - sigi45 8y ago
    I can't imagine that this is a true story. Which country is throwing someone into jail for 1,5 years for offering to sell someone lsd?
    - mikeyouse 8y ago
      Especially Federal prison (most crime in the US is under state jurisdiction). It doesn't add up at all.
      - darpa_escapee 8y ago
        If the forest is a national park or otherwise federal property, it does.

scrozart 8y ago

> 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. A difficult path, maybe, but also an avenue for setting precedent to go after the press.

scottie_m 8y ago
It really isn’t when you look at what he’s being charged with.

wybiral 8y ago

It's not directly about leaking or espionage though. The indictment [1] says that he conspired to help crack passwords from classified government databases. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481...

PatrolX 8y ago
They are in possession of some very specific irrefutable evidence, that's what it's about.
- wybiral 8y ago
  This is ambiguous... Who are "they"? "Evidence" of what?

PatrolX 8y ago

It's a "done deal", he WILL be extradited. https://www.exaronews.com/julian-assange-to-be-extradited-wikileaks-founder-facing-five-years-in-u-s-jail https://www.exaronews.com/julian-assange-to-be-extradited-wi...

PatrolX 8y ago
Was 7 years self-imprisonment in an embassy worth it? I'd like to know how.
- bellerose 8y ago
  Depends on the person, if they hold personal values higher than whatever the outcome may be.
- stendinator 8y ago
  Isn't that a very utilitaristic view of an extremely political and morally charged topic?

seppin 8y ago

Breaking into government computers is a crime.

cparsons3000 8y ago

It sounds like the US will for sure extradite him.

heyyyouu 8y ago

Actually, no, US newspapers don't STEAL information, which is what he's being charged with. If you get it from another source and you weren't part of acquiring it, you cannot be legally responsible for it (it's not like receiving stolen property). But the governments case is that in statements to manning is that he was active in ACQUIRING the information. Therefore he can be held criminally liable. Now whether those statements are really enough to hold up in court are a huge issue, but it won't matter because one they get him here they can add on a ton of charges -- perjury, conspiracy, and whatever national security rules they want. But your point #1 is not valid in that if US newspapers did ever steal information they could be held criminally liable (they don't).

umanwizard 8y ago
I’m no international law expert, but wouldn’t the UK demand that the US disclose in advance everything they plan to charge him with? 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?
- nikdaheratik 8y ago
  Assange, and his lawyers, made all kinds of arguments and appealed his extradition to Sweden all the way to the High Court and lost. He hasn't actually had any court time related to the U.S. extradition because he fled. I would assume that if he had a decent chance of winning on the merits for the U.S. extradition, he wouldn't have spent 7 years hiding in a cupboard.