7 ms·

The actual indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481... S

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.
        snowflakeandrey 8y ago
        Link the leak? In this case, extraditing to Sweden on a wholly unrelated charge than to extradite to the US seems like a thing Sweden would not want because it would have hurt their credibility in future extraditions. All speculative now, ofc.
        henrikschroder 8y ago
        Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable... Sweden has pretty much zero credibility when it comes to extraditions requested by the US: https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
  - adventured 8y ago
    The fourth possibility - and this one never ceases to be true in all cases when it comes to the Feds - is that the people seeking his prosecution are spiteful as hell. They are not used to not getting their way. It's extremely fearsome to go up against the US Government when it wants your neck, because they have so many ways to destroy your life all around the world. They have infinite resources for all practical purposes and can just keep coming at you. One of the few consistencies I've seen in my lifetime across all major US Government agencies is that they seem to hold grudges forever. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, DOJ, IRS or SEC. Assange, out there, is a persistent waving defiance of their perceived power and reach (and worse, right in the US sphere of influence).
    - grayed-down 8y ago
      Not sure why you're getting grayed down, but what you say is right on the money.
      - fixermark 8y ago
        +1. When I was a Boy Scout, I had confirmation direct from an FBI agent that once somebody is wanted, the Agency has a long memory and a long reach. The anecdote he shared was a fugitive fled to Saudi Arabia. Over a decade and a half, the fugitive grew a small business empire and was well-connected. In tandem with allies in Saudi Arabia, the FBI arranged a lavish party on a yacht to which their target was invited. The yacht sailed out to international waters and FBI agents apprehended him and put him on a Navy cruiser out at sea.
        Mirioron 8y ago
        What I wonder is how those same people in the US would feel if countries like China or Russia did the same thing openly.
        panarky 8y ago
        Does it matter if they do the same thing (or worse) openly or covertly? Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine... China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Yingying_Zhang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Yingying_Zhan...
  - rchaud 8y ago
    > The US government is not a monolith, it consists of many competing factions. The original comment said "administration", not "government". The current administration IS largely a monolith, given that nearly every high-level cabinet appointee has either been unqualified for the role or are ideologues who appear to have been hired on the basis of their loyalty to the Pres. - Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser - Scott Pruit as head of the EPA - Ben Carson as Sec of Housing - Rex Tiller as Sec of State - Herman Cain and Stephen Moore on the board of the Fed The list goes on an on.
    - panarky 8y ago
      I chose to say "US government" instead of "administration" because it may or may not have been the "administration" that requested the UK to extradite Assange. Other factions within the US government are attempting to hold the executive branch in check, and it's possible that one of these factions requested the arrest and extradition. At this point we do not know.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I chose to say "US government" instead of "administration" because it may or may not have been the "administration" that requested the UK to extradite Assange. No one outside of the administration has the authority to request extradition.
- notabee 8y ago
  Irony seems to be deprecated these days.
- ataturk 8y ago
  Wikileaks does not back particular candidates, their mission is to uncover corruption wherever it lies. Trump undoubtedly knows that Wikileaks helped him get elected. Trump's public statements have nothing to do with actual reality and how he might feel towards Assange personally. Also, Assange is an imperfect human being like all of us. He clearly is a bit of a narcissist and spotlight seeker. Like Gore Vidal, the message of the person is often in conflict (or undermined) with their personal issues.
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.

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.
      - snowflakeandrey 8y ago
        Link the leak? In this case, extraditing to Sweden on a wholly unrelated charge than to extradite to the US seems like a thing Sweden would not want because it would have hurt their credibility in future extraditions. All speculative now, ofc.
        henrikschroder 8y ago
        Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable... Sweden has pretty much zero credibility when it comes to extraditions requested by the US: https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
- adventured 8y ago
  The fourth possibility - and this one never ceases to be true in all cases when it comes to the Feds - is that the people seeking his prosecution are spiteful as hell. They are not used to not getting their way. It's extremely fearsome to go up against the US Government when it wants your neck, because they have so many ways to destroy your life all around the world. They have infinite resources for all practical purposes and can just keep coming at you. One of the few consistencies I've seen in my lifetime across all major US Government agencies is that they seem to hold grudges forever. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, DOJ, IRS or SEC. Assange, out there, is a persistent waving defiance of their perceived power and reach (and worse, right in the US sphere of influence).
  - grayed-down 8y ago
    Not sure why you're getting grayed down, but what you say is right on the money.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      +1. When I was a Boy Scout, I had confirmation direct from an FBI agent that once somebody is wanted, the Agency has a long memory and a long reach. The anecdote he shared was a fugitive fled to Saudi Arabia. Over a decade and a half, the fugitive grew a small business empire and was well-connected. In tandem with allies in Saudi Arabia, the FBI arranged a lavish party on a yacht to which their target was invited. The yacht sailed out to international waters and FBI agents apprehended him and put him on a Navy cruiser out at sea.
      - Mirioron 8y ago
        What I wonder is how those same people in the US would feel if countries like China or Russia did the same thing openly.
        panarky 8y ago
        Does it matter if they do the same thing (or worse) openly or covertly? Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine... China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Yingying_Zhang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Yingying_Zhan...
- rchaud 8y ago
  > The US government is not a monolith, it consists of many competing factions. The original comment said "administration", not "government". The current administration IS largely a monolith, given that nearly every high-level cabinet appointee has either been unqualified for the role or are ideologues who appear to have been hired on the basis of their loyalty to the Pres. - Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser - Scott Pruit as head of the EPA - Ben Carson as Sec of Housing - Rex Tiller as Sec of State - Herman Cain and Stephen Moore on the board of the Fed The list goes on an on.
  - panarky 8y ago
    I chose to say "US government" instead of "administration" because it may or may not have been the "administration" that requested the UK to extradite Assange. Other factions within the US government are attempting to hold the executive branch in check, and it's possible that one of these factions requested the arrest and extradition. At this point we do not know.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I chose to say "US government" instead of "administration" because it may or may not have been the "administration" that requested the UK to extradite Assange. No one outside of the administration has the authority to request extradition.
notabee 8y ago
Irony seems to be deprecated these days.
ataturk 8y ago
Wikileaks does not back particular candidates, their mission is to uncover corruption wherever it lies. Trump undoubtedly knows that Wikileaks helped him get elected. Trump's public statements have nothing to do with actual reality and how he might feel towards Assange personally. Also, Assange is an imperfect human being like all of us. He clearly is a bit of a narcissist and spotlight seeker. Like Gore Vidal, the message of the person is often in conflict (or undermined) with their personal issues.

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.