3 ms·

>The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case

>The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out Why did they not indict him before 2018? I don't think that has anything to do with the US government being physically unable to get to him. It's not normal procedure to delay indictment, the normal procedure is to keep the indictment sealed. Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia... >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Everyone who follows WL already knew about this hash thing in 2011, it was brought up in detail during the Manning trial. The DOJ was well aware of the possibility of indicting Assange over this, but opted to not do so until recently. >If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough This has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that DOJ flipflopping on this indicates that this was a politically motivated decision.

franey 8y ago
You're conflating two different things: publishing classified material, which the DOJ under Obama didn't charge, and a CFAA violation. Assange is getting charged for a CFAA violation. "Hacking" isn't a great description of what the law forbids. It forbids obtaining information by "intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access". https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >You're conflating two different things: publishing classified material, which the DOJ under Obama didn't charge, and a CFAA violation. I am not. This CFAA violation has been publicly discussed for 8 years now, I know exactly what I mean. The idea of indicting Assange for publishing classified material has always been a weird conspiracy theory.
xoa 8y ago
>Why did they not indict him before 2018? Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing. Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post: >Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. Your source does not support this leap. In fact quite the contrary: >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Your quote doesn't even make sense exactly because prosecutors never "have to prosecute" anything. But that aside, what we see now is that they haven't indicted him for "publishing classified material" or anything like that, they've found a genuine potential crime (if proven) that is about direct material aid provided by Assange alone. Going after publishing would invite all sorts of 1A arguments and would probably fail unless the papers were directly involved. But unless the NYT and others were in direct contact with Manning and trying to help her break through government security themselves, this charge doesn't in any way involve them. I mean, you do see how your own accusations here are symmetric right? Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too. Ask "if at some point in the last 7 years Assange had suddenly voluntarily left and returned directly to the USA and announced he was willing to face whatever they would bring, would the US have then prosecuted or not?"
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing I don't think you know what you're talking about. It is quite unusual to delay indictment like this, perhaps you can find some other examples to prove me wrong? >Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post: It's the exact same legal theory they had prepared in 2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/pr... >Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too. There's an extreme difference between politically motivated indictment and politically motivated non-indictment. That's not silly, that's asinine.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. Or a politically motivated non-prosecution by the Obama administration. I mean, look, I don't trust the Trump administration as far as I could throw the White House. But I don't really trust the Obama administration with respect to politically-charged prosecution decisions, either. The last administration that I'd really trust with something like that is... um, give me a minute... maybe Carter? Or maybe I was just too young to appreciate that I maybe shouldn't have trusted that administration, either...
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  But I don't understand this line of thought. Trump vocally likes Assange and wikileaks, while Obama Generally loved the NSA and national surveillance, and seemed perfectly willing to go after Assange.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Trumps best buds Mattis and Pompeo hate Assange far more than Obama did. Hell, Obama even commuted Mannings sentence.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  It’s much harder to condemn a politically motivated non-prosecution than it is to condemn a politically motivated prosecution. One of these is inherently far worse.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    But if it was politically motivated non-prosecution, that implies that prosecution would be the status quo, and not politically motivated. Lets say your friend works at the police anti-speeding camera department and reviews footage to issue tickets via mail. He recognizes your plates and does not issue a ticket although you did speed and violated the law, and he gives out tickets to others for the same offenses. He leaves the job and the new guy comes, reviews the old footage, and notices the missed ticket, and issues you a ticket. Are you saying the second guy committed a biased issuance of a ticket? And that's necessarily a bad thing compared to your friend letting you go?

franey 8y ago

You're conflating two different things: publishing classified material, which the DOJ under Obama didn't charge, and a CFAA violation. Assange is getting charged for a CFAA violation. "Hacking" isn't a great description of what the law forbids. It forbids obtaining information by "intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access". https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

ryanlol 8y ago
>You're conflating two different things: publishing classified material, which the DOJ under Obama didn't charge, and a CFAA violation. I am not. This CFAA violation has been publicly discussed for 8 years now, I know exactly what I mean. The idea of indicting Assange for publishing classified material has always been a weird conspiracy theory.

xoa 8y ago

>Why did they not indict him before 2018? Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing. Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post: >Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. Your source does not support this leap. In fact quite the contrary: >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Your quote doesn't even make sense exactly because prosecutors never "have to prosecute" anything. But that aside, what we see now is that they haven't indicted him for "publishing classified material" or anything like that, they've found a genuine potential crime (if proven) that is about direct material aid provided by Assange alone. Going after publishing would invite all sorts of 1A arguments and would probably fail unless the papers were directly involved. But unless the NYT and others were in direct contact with Manning and trying to help her break through government security themselves, this charge doesn't in any way involve them. I mean, you do see how your own accusations here are symmetric right? Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too. Ask "if at some point in the last 7 years Assange had suddenly voluntarily left and returned directly to the USA and announced he was willing to face whatever they would bring, would the US have then prosecuted or not?"

ryanlol 8y ago
>Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing I don't think you know what you're talking about. It is quite unusual to delay indictment like this, perhaps you can find some other examples to prove me wrong? >Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post: It's the exact same legal theory they had prepared in 2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/pr... >Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too. There's an extreme difference between politically motivated indictment and politically motivated non-indictment. That's not silly, that's asinine.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

> Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. Or a politically motivated non-prosecution by the Obama administration. I mean, look, I don't trust the Trump administration as far as I could throw the White House. But I don't really trust the Obama administration with respect to politically-charged prosecution decisions, either. The last administration that I'd really trust with something like that is... um, give me a minute... maybe Carter? Or maybe I was just too young to appreciate that I maybe shouldn't have trusted that administration, either...

mrguyorama 8y ago
But I don't understand this line of thought. Trump vocally likes Assange and wikileaks, while Obama Generally loved the NSA and national surveillance, and seemed perfectly willing to go after Assange.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Trumps best buds Mattis and Pompeo hate Assange far more than Obama did. Hell, Obama even commuted Mannings sentence.
ryanlol 8y ago
It’s much harder to condemn a politically motivated non-prosecution than it is to condemn a politically motivated prosecution. One of these is inherently far worse.
- belltaco 8y ago
  But if it was politically motivated non-prosecution, that implies that prosecution would be the status quo, and not politically motivated. Lets say your friend works at the police anti-speeding camera department and reviews footage to issue tickets via mail. He recognizes your plates and does not issue a ticket although you did speed and violated the law, and he gives out tickets to others for the same offenses. He leaves the job and the new guy comes, reviews the old footage, and notices the missed ticket, and issues you a ticket. Are you saying the second guy committed a biased issuance of a ticket? And that's necessarily a bad thing compared to your friend letting you go?