9 ms·

>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 re

>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.
      - fixermark 8y ago
        It's interesting that it may have been avoidable if he'd accepted rendition to Sweden to stand trial for the sexual assault accusation, given that the previous administration was apparently uninterested in extraditing him for this charge. He likely made the situation worse by hiding out in the embassy---he became a symbol of something untouchable by American power, and this administration cares more about that sort of perception than the previous one.
        StudentStuff 8y ago
        Deport to Sweden then deport to the USA was the scheme Assange was afraid of IIRC. Something about Sweden having a stronger deportation treaty than the UK...
        henrikschroder 8y ago
        As evidenced by the "Cablegate" leak, it's more the fact that when the US government tells the Swedish government to jump, the latter asks "how high?" like a trained fucking poodle. Regardless of which side is in power.
        8y ago
  - gcb0 8y ago
    Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) is that this is all caused by fears from the Obama administration personnel: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-int... Though it is also the narrative on russia propaganda sites https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-assange-trump/ https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-as...
    - mc32 8y ago
      It’s odd, I just heard Greenwald pinning it on the Trump admin. Not the legacy of of Obama’s DoJ. I guess he’d like to see Trump personally involved to rescind the prev DoJ indictment? Also international left is still on his side defending him, but thd US left want to see him hung out to dry. Interesting split.
      - kmkemp 8y ago
        Odd, that's not my impression. Seems like the center (on both sides) and non-libertarian right want to see him in jail.
        nostrademons 8y ago
        Wikileaks is reliably anti-institution, regardless of what that institution is. That implies that anyone seeking political power through control of institutions would be against him, which includes basically all non-libertarians in the U.S, as well as any major corporation, NGO, or nation-state large enough to be a target. His support would come from smaller nations (like Ecuador) or civil-rights organizations that themselves serve as watchdogs for institutionalized power.
        kmkemp 8y ago
        "seeking political power through control of institutions" seems entirely subjective. Why is someone on the far left running for office doing this moreso than a libertarian?
  - paul7986 8y ago
    Looks like Snowden deleted the tweet is he next or url was bad?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > 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. That's an argument against the desirability of the charge because of knock on effects (or, rather, because of some other actors past perception of such effects), not an argument supporting the claim that the charge is weak. In fact, were it weak, it would pose little danger even if it was the kind of charge that, considerations of strength aside, would pose danger.
    - sjy 8y ago
      Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense. Perhaps in the sense that while a crime can be proven, it's not an appropriate use of public resources to prosecute. Or perhaps because there is prima facie evidence of a crime but First Amendment arguments could potentially prevent the government from securing a conviction. I haven't yet found a source for the claim that the DOJ previously declined to prosecute, which might shed some light on this.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense. No, prosecutorial decisions are not, even in theory, made based solely on the strength of cases; while that is a factor, evaluation of importance (including cost/benefit considerationa), which are ultimately policy decisions which different decision-makers (and even the same decision-maker at a different time, particularly if facts pertinent to the prioritization but not the strength the of the case change) are likely to see differently even with the same view of strength of the case, are also a factor. Plus, available evidence and relevant case law can change over time; even if the case was weak during the previous Administration the same case might not be weak now. > Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense That's not a matter of the case being weak, that's a matter of policy on which actors with different policy preferences will differ even with perfect information and judgement regarding application of those preferences. > Or perhaps because there is prima facie evidence of a crime but First Amendment arguments could potentially prevent the government from securing a conviction. That would be weakness, but no one has made a coherent First Amendment argument that would bar prosecution for conspiracy to break into a government computer system manifest in an offer to help break a password and actual attempts at that. A lot of emotional appeals lacking a specific argument have been made in that direction, but that's not the same thing.
Navarr 8y ago
"5 years." Isn't he facing 10 years in UK for fleeing on bail? Does US extradite him, trial him, (jail him?) and then ship him off to the UK to serve his time there?
- PatrolX 8y ago
  Plus the 7 years of self-imprisonment in an embassy that he already served.
  - Navarr 8y ago
    I'm not sure any judge will treat being on the lam as time served, but yes.
- occamrazor 8y ago
  It would normally work in the opposite way: first he’s judged in UK, serves his sentence if any, and then he’s extradited.
- Crosseye_Jack 8y ago
  > Isn't he facing 10 years in UK for fleeing on bail? IIRC it's up to 12 months for basically contempt of court / failing to surrender.
pjc50 8y ago
This is why "breaking" news confuses as much as it informs. Has he been arrested for skipping bail on a UK court warrant? Yes. Has he been arrested on a US indictment for extradition? Also yes. These are two separate arrests. It just happens that one was once he was already at a police station. http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565 http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan... Edit: apparently the Swedish extradition is spinning up as well.
- gnode 8y ago
  What confused me most is that he was arrested twice. It seems non-nonsensical to arrest him a second time (rather than simply charge him), given that he was already in police custody. Does this signify something meaningful, such as a change of which legal basis the arrest is under, and thus a change to the rights he has?
  - M2Ys4U 8y ago
    Section 31 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act: Where— (a) a person— (i) has been arrested for an offence; and (ii) is at a police station in consequence of that arrest; and (b) it appears to a constable that, if he were released from that arrest, he would be liable to arrest for some other offence, he shall be arrested for that other offence.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    That's because arresting someone isn't so much a matter of their physical custody as initiation of a legal process involving an assertion of custody. Think of it like process serving in civil cases, where it's easy to imagine multiple lawsuits proceeding in parallel.
    - winchling 8y ago
      It's also used as an unofficial form of punishment.
      - 8y ago
baybal2 8y ago
> Eastern District of Virginia As expected

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.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      It's interesting that it may have been avoidable if he'd accepted rendition to Sweden to stand trial for the sexual assault accusation, given that the previous administration was apparently uninterested in extraditing him for this charge. He likely made the situation worse by hiding out in the embassy---he became a symbol of something untouchable by American power, and this administration cares more about that sort of perception than the previous one.
      - StudentStuff 8y ago
        Deport to Sweden then deport to the USA was the scheme Assange was afraid of IIRC. Something about Sweden having a stronger deportation treaty than the UK...
        henrikschroder 8y ago
        As evidenced by the "Cablegate" leak, it's more the fact that when the US government tells the Swedish government to jump, the latter asks "how high?" like a trained fucking poodle. Regardless of which side is in power.
        8y ago
- gcb0 8y ago
  Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) is that this is all caused by fears from the Obama administration personnel: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-int... Though it is also the narrative on russia propaganda sites https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-assange-trump/ https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-as...
  - mc32 8y ago
    It’s odd, I just heard Greenwald pinning it on the Trump admin. Not the legacy of of Obama’s DoJ. I guess he’d like to see Trump personally involved to rescind the prev DoJ indictment? Also international left is still on his side defending him, but thd US left want to see him hung out to dry. Interesting split.
    - kmkemp 8y ago
      Odd, that's not my impression. Seems like the center (on both sides) and non-libertarian right want to see him in jail.
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        Wikileaks is reliably anti-institution, regardless of what that institution is. That implies that anyone seeking political power through control of institutions would be against him, which includes basically all non-libertarians in the U.S, as well as any major corporation, NGO, or nation-state large enough to be a target. His support would come from smaller nations (like Ecuador) or civil-rights organizations that themselves serve as watchdogs for institutionalized power.
        kmkemp 8y ago
        "seeking political power through control of institutions" seems entirely subjective. Why is someone on the far left running for office doing this moreso than a libertarian?
- paul7986 8y ago
  Looks like Snowden deleted the tweet is he next or url was bad?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > 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. That's an argument against the desirability of the charge because of knock on effects (or, rather, because of some other actors past perception of such effects), not an argument supporting the claim that the charge is weak. In fact, were it weak, it would pose little danger even if it was the kind of charge that, considerations of strength aside, would pose danger.
  - sjy 8y ago
    Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense. Perhaps in the sense that while a crime can be proven, it's not an appropriate use of public resources to prosecute. Or perhaps because there is prima facie evidence of a crime but First Amendment arguments could potentially prevent the government from securing a conviction. I haven't yet found a source for the claim that the DOJ previously declined to prosecute, which might shed some light on this.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense. No, prosecutorial decisions are not, even in theory, made based solely on the strength of cases; while that is a factor, evaluation of importance (including cost/benefit considerationa), which are ultimately policy decisions which different decision-makers (and even the same decision-maker at a different time, particularly if facts pertinent to the prioritization but not the strength the of the case change) are likely to see differently even with the same view of strength of the case, are also a factor. Plus, available evidence and relevant case law can change over time; even if the case was weak during the previous Administration the same case might not be weak now. > Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense That's not a matter of the case being weak, that's a matter of policy on which actors with different policy preferences will differ even with perfect information and judgement regarding application of those preferences. > Or perhaps because there is prima facie evidence of a crime but First Amendment arguments could potentially prevent the government from securing a conviction. That would be weakness, but no one has made a coherent First Amendment argument that would bar prosecution for conspiracy to break into a government computer system manifest in an offer to help break a password and actual attempts at that. A lot of emotional appeals lacking a specific argument have been made in that direction, but that's not the same thing.

Navarr 8y ago

"5 years." Isn't he facing 10 years in UK for fleeing on bail? Does US extradite him, trial him, (jail him?) and then ship him off to the UK to serve his time there?

PatrolX 8y ago
Plus the 7 years of self-imprisonment in an embassy that he already served.
- Navarr 8y ago
  I'm not sure any judge will treat being on the lam as time served, but yes.
occamrazor 8y ago
It would normally work in the opposite way: first he’s judged in UK, serves his sentence if any, and then he’s extradited.
Crosseye_Jack 8y ago
> Isn't he facing 10 years in UK for fleeing on bail? IIRC it's up to 12 months for basically contempt of court / failing to surrender.

pjc50 8y ago

This is why "breaking" news confuses as much as it informs. Has he been arrested for skipping bail on a UK court warrant? Yes. Has he been arrested on a US indictment for extradition? Also yes. These are two separate arrests. It just happens that one was once he was already at a police station. http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assange-365565 http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan... Edit: apparently the Swedish extradition is spinning up as well.

gnode 8y ago
What confused me most is that he was arrested twice. It seems non-nonsensical to arrest him a second time (rather than simply charge him), given that he was already in police custody. Does this signify something meaningful, such as a change of which legal basis the arrest is under, and thus a change to the rights he has?
- M2Ys4U 8y ago
  Section 31 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act: Where— (a) a person— (i) has been arrested for an offence; and (ii) is at a police station in consequence of that arrest; and (b) it appears to a constable that, if he were released from that arrest, he would be liable to arrest for some other offence, he shall be arrested for that other offence.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  That's because arresting someone isn't so much a matter of their physical custody as initiation of a legal process involving an assertion of custody. Think of it like process serving in civil cases, where it's easy to imagine multiple lawsuits proceeding in parallel.
  - winchling 8y ago
    It's also used as an unofficial form of punishment.
    - 8y ago

baybal2 8y ago

> Eastern District of Virginia As expected