30 ms·

Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues

993 points by tysone 7y ago

objektif 7y ago
Its funny how some people did 180 on Assange very quickly after the DNC email leaks. The whole point of auch leaks is you can not pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you dont!! Some even claimed that he was a Russian asset. This is really depressing.
- gataca 7y ago
  Assange is not some sort of objective actor in this saga, he clearly had a partisan motive in the 2016 election that aligned nicely with the Russian spy agencies and has been paid by the Russian government via RT in the past. He had a show on their propaganda channel so it’s reasonable to connect him to Russia.
- MeltySmelty 7y ago
  leave it to libturds
acoye 7y ago
So death sentence is publicly a possibility now right?
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to make a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually get custody. I’m not surprised to see new charges filed. But these charges seem very likely to backfire. By overcharging, the US may well cause the UK to balk. I have to assume that someone expects to negotiate a shorter list of charges, so they started with a crazy opening offer.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to make a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually get custody. That may not be absolute, we seemingly have agreed to waive it elsewhere - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067
    - maxlybbert 7y ago
      Thanks. That’s news to me. I know that previous non-binding promises (which were then ignored; i.e., people were executed) caused diplomatic trouble, so I still expect the US to make a binding promise.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >I still expect the US to make a binding promise. Even if it is expressly told, in private, by the Home Secretary, that it doesn't have to, even while the UK government claims a different policy in public, as has apparently already happened in this other case? Also, the Home Office could make an exception at the very last minute if it wants to. There would be questions asked, but it would be largely moot if he is already out of the country.
        gsnedders 7y ago
        To extradite without such a guarantee is a blatant violation of the UK's obligations as a signatory of the ECHR, as to do so would violate his right to life. If there's any reason to suspect that no such guarantee exists, they may well apply to the ECtHR after any Supreme Court decision to extradite him, and it would be unlikely that he'd be extradited until the ECtHR judgment had happened. That said, if it comes to light after he's been extradited any application to the ECtHR would likely do little for him, though it would be politically damaging.
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
- duxup 7y ago
  IMO highly unlikely. The UK is usually not ok with that, and I'm not sure this is a case anyone wants to take that far.
idlewords 7y ago
Here's a link to the indictment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqe9dXY6AT8NY2Cg_SWavj5RIzA2CWAV/preview https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqe9dXY6AT8NY2Cg_SWavj5RIzA...
- mirimir 7y ago
  Also, as backup: https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-031.pdf https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-031.pdf
devoply 7y ago
I said it before if the US gets their hands on him, he's going away for life. Each charge is about 10 years x 18 charges.
- willvarfar 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies to see the sentences of spies. Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years, but it was commuted after 7.
  - Klonoar 7y ago
    Her commutation came about as a bit of a surprise at the end of the Obama presidency. I'm not sure I'd expect that to happen here.
    - auntienomen 7y ago
      Given who she's been palling around with since, I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama administration let her go to see where she would lead them.
krustyburger 7y ago
Charges like these, which such heavy minimum sentences should he be convicted, are exactly what he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. It appears he wasn’t.
- ddingus 7y ago
  Yup. Some of us have taken note of "those observers" for the future.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ddingus 7y ago
    Like it, don't like it. We've got a basic conflict in play right now. Ordinary people vs a growing, greedy, authoritarian establishment. Who observes what actually matters. They will get it wrong again. We can have a healthy discussion about intent, and we should. No matter the intent, it's pretty damn important to understand who is lucid on all of this and who is not. And for those who are not? Let's talk more, get them lucid. This isn't a personal thing. It's political, and while the norms surrounding politics seem more harsh than necessary, I refuse to subscribe to any of that. Wrong, right? I personally do not care too much. We get things wrong, and we get them right. The conversation about all of that, the process? That is what matters, and it's where the good stuff is. The times are escalating conflict times. Not growing more stable. Ignore all of that at our mutual peril.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard Did they? I thought it was commonly held he would face such charges. The allegations around delusion were in respect of his ability to evade them for the rest of his life.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Yes, they did. Here is tptacek saying that Assagne was dishonest and irrational when claiming to fear extradition to America: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 Go through his comment history and survey what he's been saying about Assange over the years. It's pretty egregious.
mtgx 7y ago
If the US government loses (it should based on the Pentagon Papers precedent, but who really knows how the conservative-stacked Supreme Court will rule), then it should settle hopefully once and for all that these sort of cases can't be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. The US government has kept threatening all national security whistleblowers with the Espionage Act so they take the 5-10 years in prison plea deals for the past couple of decades. Considering it's very unlikely Assange will take a plea deal on this one, I hope he gets to win, for all future national security whistleblowers' sake.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Assange is not a journalist, and thus is not protected by legal cases protecting members of the press. (Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is not a journalistic activity.) EDIT: downvotes don't change reality...Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required. Assange put no effort into analyzing the materials he received; he simply published everything (except the Trump stuff).
  - SamuelAdams 7y ago
    I suspect you are being downvoted because you have not provided any sources. Can you reference specific court cases for this claim? > Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >except the Trump stuff Assuming this is true, doesn't that prove he analyzed it and decided what he thought relevant to be published? You may not like the metric he used in his analysis, but have the courts ever up held standards as to what metrics used count?
  - 7y ago
ztratar 7y ago
I guess that's what happens when you leak classified information and then work with foreign adversaries. Kind of interesting how people think this isn't espionage related. I would like to hear the argument that this is purely a first amendment case. Free speech doesn't cover the theft of dangerous, classified information and potentially treasonous activities.
- joenathanone 7y ago
  > foreign adversaries He isn't a US citizen.
  - notimetorelax 7y ago
    This is what I’m not getting. How can someone be indicted of espionage if this happened outside of the country? E.g. it’s not illegal to spy on the other countries from within the US.
  - balabaster 7y ago
    Additionally... > Free speech doesn't cover the theft of dangerous, classified information and potentially treasonous activities. Treason [noun]: The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. He didn't betray his county. He's not a U.S. citizen. He didn't try to kill any sovereign. The U.S. doesn't have a monarch, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't tried to assassinate any sitting president. There is no evidence that the leaking of evidence of war crimes would overthrow the government. It would probably see a lot of people fired, but given the structure of the U.S. Government, it's nigh on impossible to overthrow a government. Even for something as egregious as war crimes. So using the word treasonous is a stretch.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- danboarder 7y ago
  Or instead of describing Wikileaks publications as "theft" you could describe it as publishing whistle-blowers who are exposing illegal corruption (like the NSA spying case), and whistle-blowers are legally protected in many contexts. N.S.A. Collection of Bulk Call Data Is Ruled Illegal https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us/nsa-phone-records-collection-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us/nsa-phone-records-coll...
dontbenebby 7y ago
This is troubling since the courts have also argued lawsuits over illegal wiretapping and other misconduct cannot move forward as they would... expose classified information: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-legality-nsa-mass-spying-citing-secrecy-claims https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-legality-... Without the ability for the press to publicize illegal actions so that voters can remove officials who allow it, the US government can engage in unconstitutional conduct with almost zero oversight by making the illegal conduct classified.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  I would argue that this is the intended outcome. I do not believe we have enough control over our government. Edit: I guess I should add that a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world, because they think it’s okay for “their side” to have absolute power over others. Often I think they associate “our side” to be the side of the “good guys” and thus find our grip on global hegemony acceptable. Except there are no “good guys” who always behave in a fair and even way, that is a childish fantasy used to keep us on board with the serious injustice perpetrated by governments the world over. The US government is responsible for oppression and murder the world over in addition to the good things we might do. We cannot blanket trust any government to behave appropriately in secrecy unless we want to simply abdicate our responsibility for the harm that governments then cause.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    You have the power to get the elected representatives to write and change every single law of government. But the citizenry often lacks the coordination, direction, and will to ensure the majority of representatives does so. The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. If indeed there is some classified information that shouldn't be exposed, that is extremely serious and can't just be aired like a tabloid news story. There is no simple way to keep the public informed of classified information. It's likely that the most reasonable safeguard is to have elected representatives with a strong moral code to vet the situation and act to protect their constituents.
Tortoise 7y ago
I suspect that it might be harder to extradite him on these offences because the extradition treaty between the US and the UK, like all such treaties, bans extradition for “political offences.” (See article 4-1) If he is extradited on the hacking offence the US can’t also try him for espionage without the UK’s permission.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Espionage is not a political offense in either the US or the UK. A political offense means something like being charged with a crime for offending the "good name" of the prime minister (see, e.g., Turkey or India for examples).
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    How in the world is being prosecuted for publishing a country's dirty laundry not the same as being prosecuted for a political offense... (Not saying you're wrong, just questioning whoever came up with that definition and if we should maybe change it.)
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      Well, for starters all the information that Assange published while running Wikileaks embarasses the previous political administration, not the current (Trump) administration... Moreover, Assange isn't being charged with embarassing anyone, since American journalists do that all the time. Assange is being charged with specific illegal acts that actual journalists don't do, like actually trying to break encryption on classified documents.
      - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
        Journalists do try to break encryption on classified documents, and Assange is not being charged with that. The documents were not encrypted and were obtained in cleartext from Manning.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vermilingua 7y ago
So did he commit espionage, or expose war crimes? Let’s hope the courts decide wisely, because this case will settle the question of whether governments and militaries can be held accountable by their people.
- Causality1 7y ago
  Both.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    To expand, he exposed war crimes. But he also exposed a bunch of unrelated, not-war-crime stuff due to his refusal to redact. Contrast that with e.g. Snowden or the Panama Papers leakers, who disclosed information more carefully.
    - maxlybbert 7y ago
      I don’t think you have to make the distinction. Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. It is true those things could influence whether charges are filed, or pardons granted. IIRC, it’s the legal difference between an affirmative defense and simply being innocent.
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. The Espionage Act is framed within the confines of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Being a journalist (i.e. taking an active role in curating and analyzing the materials) has historically mattered to the courts (e.g. around Deep Throat).
- auntienomen 7y ago
  It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information detailed war crimes. Some did not; some of it was diplomatic cables, lists of informants, etc. Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. Maybe we can agree to forgive him for the portion of the espionage which exposed war crimes, but I see no reason he should be given blanket immunity for everything he's done.
yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
[Before Snowden] People on HN: Of course the government aren't spying on citizens. What are you? Some kind of tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theory nutjob? [After Snowden] People on HN: Well obviously the government were spying on everyone. Were you really that naïve? [Before Assange Indictment] People on HN: That Assange guy is a completely delusional whack-job. How can anyone be so stupid to believe the UK/Sweden would cooperate with the US in taking him down permanently? [After Assange Indictment] [crickets (for now at least)]
- mcv 7y ago
  That's an extreme misrepresentation. Unless your argument is that on this site there was probably someone who held that opinion at the time. But before Snowden, many people here were under no delusions about US government spying, and few people have ever doubted the UK's willingness to cooperate with the US on anything. People only doubted, and still doubt, Sweden's willingness to extradite Assange to the US for espionage. They don't do that. Sweden wants him for rape.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Sweden allows the CIA to just black bag people, outside of the legal system. That's the fear of being extradited to Sweden; the UK doesn't allow the CIA to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
    - mcv 7y ago
      Not good, but also not the same thing. This was deportation of asylum seekers to Egypt, not extradition to the US. Edit: it's also not true that the UK doesn't deport who shouldn't be deported. Just a random search result: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/09/revealed-five-men-killed-since-being-deported-uk-jamaica-home-office https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/09/revealed-fiv...
      - 7y ago
thomascgalvin 7y ago
This is the most important part of the indictment, and it's right on page one: > ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public. The main charge here is that Assange actively encouraged people to break the law. Since he wasn't a US citizen and had not signed a non-disclosure agreement with the United States, many of the laws protecting classified information do not apply to him directly. The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." The next section, titled "B. Chelsea Manning Responded to ASSANGE'S Solicitation and Stole Classified Documents from the United States", explains how Assange's solicitation lead directly to the criminal acts committed by Manning. Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers. So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf. You can argue about the validity of these charges, even the validity of the classifications levels assigned to some of the material given to Assange, but we should be clear about exactly what is being claimed by the government, as well.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  The charge could have been limited to working on cracking the password. Instead it explicitly describes activity common to reporters and critical for democracy: publishing information the source obtained "illegally". In quotes because a government with something to hide will generally hide it under a national security secrets act. Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dev_dull 7y ago
It’s amazing to me the distinction the government is making here with Wikileaks. How many things related to the Russian probe were leaked last year? Wasn’t it one “bombshell” after another? No problems there even though that information turned out to be false but was plastered across every tv screen in the country.
- duxup 7y ago
  Reporters who reported on those leaks are largely in the clear. Had they tried to give someone help someone " (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information" ... they likely would be in a lot of trouble. Such as "hey man here's how to hack Muller's computer" and so forth (that's a very blunt example but it would qualify). That isn't a line that gets crossed by reporters very often in the US. It's hard to talk about in here as so few people want to talk about the actual charges, but that step in assisting (or trying to) is the key to these charges.
  - AshamedCaptain 7y ago
    So what is the following page, other than a tool to help circumvent legal safeguards on information? It even includes information on how to encrypt your leak so that you're not caught... https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips
    - duxup 7y ago
      Encrypting your own information, or providing information is clearly not the same as "here's how to hack someone's computer" (again blunt example but it is the gist of the difference).
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    Of course reporters are largely in the clear based on what we know so far. But the DOJ and intelligence agency officers who selectively leaked information about the Russia investigation and unmasked people to the press in order to foment their own narrative should technically be prosecuted just as Manning and Snowden were. If enough insiders keep doing it and they all mostly agree with each other, and they are the only ones in charge of initiating these prosecutions, obviously they aren't going to prosecute themselves for breaking the rules in the same manner they went after relative outsiders such as Manning and Snowden. And they obviously would turn a blind eye to reporters they are cozy with, compared to how deeply they looked into Assange.
citilife 7y ago
I still don't really understand how a journalist, non-U.S. citizen, operating entirely outside the U.S. is being indicted for anything. I understand he obtained U.S. documents and published them. However, if I obtain on-the-ground images of the Tiananmen Square protests and share them on Facebook with my friend group, should I be subject to Chinese laws? I don't live in China, I don't have Chinese citizenship, I've never been to China. Should I be subject to Chinese law?
- eurg 7y ago
  China would say yes, and in such a case you should not ever be in a state that has and/or requires good diplomatic relationship with, or economic support from, China. Law is, after all, what gets executed, and debating whether it's right or wrong is a luxury you don't have when it's executed on you.
  - dpwm 7y ago
    China actually hasn't overstated its jurisdiction anywhere near as egregiously as the US has.
    - eurg 7y ago
      Where they do have power, they wield it. See: international relations regarding Taiwan.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        They don't see their relations with Taiwan as international.
        function_seven 7y ago
        Read it as "See: international relations [with the rest of the world] regarding [the subject of] Taiwan"
    - 7y ago
filleokus 7y ago
I wonder what will happen with regard to the extraditions. Apparently Sweden has issued an European Arrest Warrant to get him to Sweden after he has served his current British sentence (for skipping bail). EAW's are (apparently) different to the normal extradition process, and is more streamlined and does not involve diplomatic channels. I've heard Swedish law commentators say that the EAW would be honoured before any non-EU extradition, if this was a normal case. If he eventually get's to Sweden before the US, it will be very interesting to see if Sweden will turn him over. I would guess so, but perhaps that's just my teenage bitterness from the The Piratebay trial still lingering...
- gsnedders 7y ago
  Precedence of the extradition requests is a matter for the Home Secretary, if I'm not mistaken, and there are various guidelines to determine which request should be given precedence. Given the previous EAW was withdrawn due to the impossibility of serving it, it is relatively likely any new EAW will be considered practically identical to the original one and therefore the date of the original warrant used to grant precedence. There's also the matter of statute of limitations: the Swedish offences (one? two? I forget how many of the original four have passed the limit) need to go to court in the relatively near future, whereas the US offences have no limit as I understand it; this furthers the argument that the Swedish request should be given precedence. As for whether he gets to Sweden before the US, remember that he can then challenge the extradition to the US in both Swedish and English courts, and Sweden considers espionage a political crime for which it won't extradite. (Okay, very hypothetically extraordinary rendition has happened from Sweden with some level of Swedish consent before, but for such a thing to be done to such a high profile person would be… truly extraordinary.)
- anthuman 7y ago
  Of course Sweden is going to turn him over. Why do you think the "rape" case magically appeared in sweden? Just like how "rape" case magically appeared for kavanaugh. Just like how "rape" case magically appeared for bill clinton. Of course the Trump. Whenever the "elites" want to attack someone, they love to use "sexual assault" as weapon to try and take down their targets. Sweden is a tiny vassal state of the US. They'll do as they are told.
auntienomen 7y ago
In case anyone actually wants to read the indictment (which for some reason neither the Times nor the Post links to): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6024842/Assange-superseding-indictment.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6024842/Assange-s...
bezoisevil 7y ago
Assange and WikiLeals are traitors. I supported the hell out of them in the beginning but they crossed the line with Russia
mLuby 7y ago
Legal question: if Charlie steals classified files and gives them to Ann, and then Bob gives Charlie $1M (no known connection between Bob and Charlie), can Bob be prosecuted for post-facto "encouraging sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to Ann for public dissemination; and (iii) continuing the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to Ann for distribution to the public"?
bArray 7y ago
It really is a fucked up world we live in, where a whistle-blower exposing Western governments for acting illegally is arrested and the persons who were spying on people have little to no consequences. I hope these charges get dropped, he has done and continues to do a great service to the world. The West got caught with their trousers down and they just need to deal with it. If you don't like get caught, stop acting in bad faith against the people. I think Assange's self-imprisonment should also be considered in any punishment, there's no doubt that it took a toll on his mental and physical well-being.
- zanny 7y ago
  The journalist that leaked the panama papers was murdered while nobody was arrested for hundreds of billions in money laundering and tax evasion.
  - nikeee 7y ago
    > The journalist that leaked the panama papers was murdered How do we know that he was murdered when he was anonymous? Am I missing something?
    - e12e 7y ago
      I assume it's a reference to the journalist reporting on the papers: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb...
      - ryanlol 7y ago
        Nothing suggests that her killing had anything to do with the Panama Papers either, she reported on many things.
bb88 7y ago
It looks like all counts were from 2010, and not anything to do with the 2016 election. [DOJ Indictment: 1] Much of it has to do with First Amendment issues, sure. But not all of it. A large piece of his crimes were conspiracy to access computers without authorization. I'm not sure the Julian Assange hill is the one I'd die on if I was worried about first amendment protection of the press. [DOJ Indictment: 1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1165566/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1165566...
- ipqk 7y ago
  Julian Assange is exactly the hill I'd die on, because rights apply to all people, even the worst. And that's how they start chipping away at them.
  - bb88 7y ago
    If you want to make sure (like I do) that journalism isn't criminalized -- then you probably should not label criminal activity as journalism.
    - e12e 7y ago
      Care to take a guess at what the password was? If you do, should we both be indicted for conspiracy to access a military computer system?
      - bb88 7y ago
        You mean guessing a password on a computer system with warning messages that say: "This is a classified system. Unauthorized access is a violation of US Code punishable by up to 20 years in prison" ? No.
dialoguediscou 7y ago
Extremely interesting article!
snissn 7y ago
Any Australians have particular concern about their fellow citizen?
- ggm 7y ago
  He is receiving his full consular assistance entitlements. They are scant. What I think about him isn't the point here, what needs to be understood is that he is entitled to help from the embassy, and though said through gritted teeth, no Australian Minister for foreign affairs has ever said they are denying him support, and have said in very luke-warm voice they confirm he is being offered them. They don't amount to much. They confirm he has access to a lawyer. They confirm his state of health. They can't get him out of Belmarsh, or prevent the extradition.
- perilunar 7y ago
  He's probably safer in the UK. If he was here we'd probably have extradited him already.
jackfoxy 7y ago
Way back before he holed-up in the Ecuadorian, well before his hero status in some quarters tarnished from the 2016 election, I had this guy pegged as a Russian operative. I'm sure he probably viewed himself as in charge. The nature of espionage has certainly changed over the decades. We can't allow free-lance operatives (more in line, I think, with his self image) to conduct espionage against us. He's a legitimate target.
- socceroos 7y ago
  For what reason? Lots of "anti-USA" leaks?
  - jackfoxy 7y ago
    It's fallen into the memory hole. See the current Wikipedia page, no mention of Assange's ideologies from teenage years all the way through founding WikiLeaks. And also no information doing simple internet searches. I'm not motivated to try digging deeper, because, well...not worth the effort. IIRC (...and maybe I don't) it was easy to run across allegations (which seemed to make sense) of his ideological leanings...I think related to hangers-on of the cult his mother got the family involved in. That and his frequent appearances on Russian media at the time (8+ years ago). People forget, and however it happens, information falls into the memory hole.
SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
I really wish I hadn't peaked the comments on there.
mar77i 7y ago
Listen to Eisenhower's farewell address and read up on JFK assassination, about which Trump so conveniently blocked a load of material until 2021. How much more important can the secret service be than the government?
otakucode 7y ago
I am primarily concerned with how the government establishes jurisdiction in this case. Assange is a foreigner, and every single one of his actions were done in a foreign country. At what point does the United States government gain the authority to apply United States legal code to his actions? There might be an obvious answer to this, but I honestly don't understand it.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  He conspired with a US citizen to break into a military computer. The jurisdiction applies to the whole conspiracy, so Assange can be charged.
colordrops 7y ago
To see all the concern here in this community I trust to be objective and fair is heartening. Based on what you see in social and mainstream media, you'd think Assange is a demon who deserves no justice and that journalism/free speech is not a protected right.
mensetmanusman 7y ago
What good could this possibly serve to imprison him? Shouldn’t western governments be spending more time supporting destabilizing efforts in authoritarian countries?
- entropea 7y ago
  >Shouldn’t western governments be spending more time supporting destabilizing efforts in authoritarian countries? No? That's for the people of the country to do, not foreign powers. There has never in history been a government that hasn't fallen to its own people. There also isn't an example of US or Western imperialist forces 'destabilizing' that has lead to better conditions for the people of that country. Libya has open slave trade right now while people die with arm floaties crossing the Mediterranean.
dangbang 7y ago
Your government is rotten and corrupt, but you want more of it, and you vote for more, because you would rather have more "security" at the expense of the looming debt default (to which you are blind because you've got your Pinterest stock options).
chejazi 7y ago
So many smart tech people see IP as an issue when in actuality it's not much different from xenophobia stemming from blue-collar job "loss" in the US. Accept it will happen and become better from it.
thrwoafsdfad 7y ago
> tool of Russia’s election interference Now you know why 'lamestream' media is so mistrusted.
Tharkun 7y ago
We can only hope that US voters will end up electing a government with a functioning moral compass in the near future. Perhaps said government could end up pardoning the whistleblowers exposing the crimes of the previous governments. You could spend all day arguing whether Assange is a journalist/publisher, or whether he's still just Mendax getting his rocks off. You could argue about Manning and Snowden's methods. You could argue about every other whistleblower's way of coming forward. But you can't deny that each of these people exposed serious crimes perpetrated by the US government. Spying on citizens, torture, war crimes, etc.
netmonk 7y ago
Peoples talking about loss of justice. Do i have to remind that long before Weinstein (but this case it typical), allegated suspects are found guilty and suffer from irrationnal blaming and crowd punishment long before they face a real judge...thanks to ww2 and Nuremberg. This is what happens when justice system is more based on Public Relation than establishing the reality of facts and make a judgement from it.
0x445442 7y ago
I think this is largely a smoke screen and believe Assange will not be convicted of much. I think Assange has key information that will be useful in establishing that the prior administration used the DOJ and FBI to spy on political adversaries during a campaign year and I think the current administration, DOJ and FBI are intent on making that case.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> The United States has asked Britain to extradite Mr. Assange, who is fighting the move, and the filing of the new charges clears the way for British courts to weigh whether it would be lawful to transfer custody of him to a place where he will face Espionage Act charges. Unfortunately, with Theresa May's resignation today (effective 7 June) the way the wind blows is that Boris Johnson will become the new leader of the Tory party and prime minister of the UK. I can't imagine that the US extradition request will be resisted for very long after that. Interstingly, unless the UK finds a way to extradite Assange to two nations at once, this will rather leave the Swedish prosecutor who asked for it first with a bit of an embarassing turn of events to deal with. I really don't see the UK (especially the UK under BoJo) giving priority to a rape trial in Sweden over an espionage trial in the US. One of those is much more photogenic.
quotz 7y ago
This is very troubling. Very, very troubling. I really hope that the West doesnt become like the Chinese and Middle East governments...
Sovereigns 7y ago
When everyone learns just who the Natives of North and South America. Then Americus Empire would get back Recognition to what is Fact. Americus Empire was already Recognized as a Nation and as world citizens as far back as 422b.c. These are recorded facts that sits in archives one being in central park of N.Y.C. When the linguistics are followed and read in the ancient first Coptic language, Renegade laws will stop assuming jurisdiction in North and South America. May I add, "there" (white tribes, Royals of UK):have exact and total jurisdiction because those ways and customs are theirs. Americus Empire is The Camels Eye Treaty under cosus omasus law. Newcomers and Government refer and may be better familiar with The Eye of Isis Treaty. I bet everyone that would love to believe that I am mistaken does not even know your Treaty just like the rest of First Nations people that are classified as prisoners of war under international law. Treason is what domestic Renegade laws of North America are in violation of. Assumed Jurisdiction continues because The Indian doesn't even know who they are and that's just what the royal proclamation intended. Spirit and intent was to destroy my race and have power over Mother Earth's land.

993 points by tysone 7y ago

Its funny how some people did 180 on Assange very quickly after the DNC email leaks. The whole point of auch leaks is you can not pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you dont!! Some even claimed that he was a Russian asset. This is really depressing.

gataca 7y ago
Assange is not some sort of objective actor in this saga, he clearly had a partisan motive in the 2016 election that aligned nicely with the Russian spy agencies and has been paid by the Russian government via RT in the past. He had a show on their propaganda channel so it’s reasonable to connect him to Russia.
MeltySmelty 7y ago
leave it to libturds

acoye 7y ago

So death sentence is publicly a possibility now right?

maxlybbert 7y ago
The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to make a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually get custody. I’m not surprised to see new charges filed. But these charges seem very likely to backfire. By overcharging, the US may well cause the UK to balk. I have to assume that someone expects to negotiate a shorter list of charges, so they started with a crazy opening offer.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to make a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually get custody. That may not be absolute, we seemingly have agreed to waive it elsewhere - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44929067
  - maxlybbert 7y ago
    Thanks. That’s news to me. I know that previous non-binding promises (which were then ignored; i.e., people were executed) caused diplomatic trouble, so I still expect the US to make a binding promise.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      >I still expect the US to make a binding promise. Even if it is expressly told, in private, by the Home Secretary, that it doesn't have to, even while the UK government claims a different policy in public, as has apparently already happened in this other case? Also, the Home Office could make an exception at the very last minute if it wants to. There would be questions asked, but it would be largely moot if he is already out of the country.
      - gsnedders 7y ago
        To extradite without such a guarantee is a blatant violation of the UK's obligations as a signatory of the ECHR, as to do so would violate his right to life. If there's any reason to suspect that no such guarantee exists, they may well apply to the ECtHR after any Supreme Court decision to extradite him, and it would be unlikely that he'd be extradited until the ECtHR judgment had happened. That said, if it comes to light after he's been extradited any application to the ECtHR would likely do little for him, though it would be politically damaging.
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
duxup 7y ago
IMO highly unlikely. The UK is usually not ok with that, and I'm not sure this is a case anyone wants to take that far.

idlewords 7y ago

Here's a link to the indictment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqe9dXY6AT8NY2Cg_SWavj5RIzA2CWAV/preview https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqe9dXY6AT8NY2Cg_SWavj5RIzA...

mirimir 7y ago
Also, as backup: https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-031.pdf https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-031.pdf

devoply 7y ago

I said it before if the US gets their hands on him, he's going away for life. Each charge is about 10 years x 18 charges.

willvarfar 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_imprisoned_spies to see the sentences of spies. Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years, but it was commuted after 7.
- Klonoar 7y ago
  Her commutation came about as a bit of a surprise at the end of the Obama presidency. I'm not sure I'd expect that to happen here.
  - auntienomen 7y ago
    Given who she's been palling around with since, I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama administration let her go to see where she would lead them.

krustyburger 7y ago

Charges like these, which such heavy minimum sentences should he be convicted, are exactly what he claimed were waiting for him if he left the Embassy. Over the years, many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard. It appears he wasn’t.

ddingus 7y ago
Yup. Some of us have taken note of "those observers" for the future.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ddingus 7y ago
  Like it, don't like it. We've got a basic conflict in play right now. Ordinary people vs a growing, greedy, authoritarian establishment. Who observes what actually matters. They will get it wrong again. We can have a healthy discussion about intent, and we should. No matter the intent, it's pretty damn important to understand who is lucid on all of this and who is not. And for those who are not? Let's talk more, get them lucid. This isn't a personal thing. It's political, and while the norms surrounding politics seem more harsh than necessary, I refuse to subscribe to any of that. Wrong, right? I personally do not care too much. We get things wrong, and we get them right. The conversation about all of that, the process? That is what matters, and it's where the good stuff is. The times are escalating conflict times. Not growing more stable. Ignore all of that at our mutual peril.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> many observers claimed he was delusional in this regard Did they? I thought it was commonly held he would face such charges. The allegations around delusion were in respect of his ability to evade them for the rest of his life.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Yes, they did. Here is tptacek saying that Assagne was dishonest and irrational when claiming to fear extradition to America: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11043329 Go through his comment history and survey what he's been saying about Assange over the years. It's pretty egregious.

mtgx 7y ago

If the US government loses (it should based on the Pentagon Papers precedent, but who really knows how the conservative-stacked Supreme Court will rule), then it should settle hopefully once and for all that these sort of cases can't be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. The US government has kept threatening all national security whistleblowers with the Espionage Act so they take the 5-10 years in prison plea deals for the past couple of decades. Considering it's very unlikely Assange will take a plea deal on this one, I hope he gets to win, for all future national security whistleblowers' sake.

gamblor956 7y ago
Assange is not a journalist, and thus is not protected by legal cases protecting members of the press. (Posting unverified documents without making any attempts to verify them is not a journalistic activity.) EDIT: downvotes don't change reality...Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required. Assange put no effort into analyzing the materials he received; he simply published everything (except the Trump stuff).
- SamuelAdams 7y ago
  I suspect you are being downvoted because you have not provided any sources. Can you reference specific court cases for this claim? > Courts have analyzed what makes someone a journalist for purposes of these laws, and at a minimum, whether investigation/research or discourse (i.e., writing or video reporting) is involved, they all agree that analysis of the investigated/researched material is required.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >except the Trump stuff Assuming this is true, doesn't that prove he analyzed it and decided what he thought relevant to be published? You may not like the metric he used in his analysis, but have the courts ever up held standards as to what metrics used count?
- 7y ago

ztratar 7y ago

I guess that's what happens when you leak classified information and then work with foreign adversaries. Kind of interesting how people think this isn't espionage related. I would like to hear the argument that this is purely a first amendment case. Free speech doesn't cover the theft of dangerous, classified information and potentially treasonous activities.

joenathanone 7y ago
> foreign adversaries He isn't a US citizen.
- notimetorelax 7y ago
  This is what I’m not getting. How can someone be indicted of espionage if this happened outside of the country? E.g. it’s not illegal to spy on the other countries from within the US.
- balabaster 7y ago
  Additionally... > Free speech doesn't cover the theft of dangerous, classified information and potentially treasonous activities. Treason [noun]: The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. He didn't betray his county. He's not a U.S. citizen. He didn't try to kill any sovereign. The U.S. doesn't have a monarch, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't tried to assassinate any sitting president. There is no evidence that the leaking of evidence of war crimes would overthrow the government. It would probably see a lot of people fired, but given the structure of the U.S. Government, it's nigh on impossible to overthrow a government. Even for something as egregious as war crimes. So using the word treasonous is a stretch.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
danboarder 7y ago
Or instead of describing Wikileaks publications as "theft" you could describe it as publishing whistle-blowers who are exposing illegal corruption (like the NSA spying case), and whistle-blowers are legally protected in many contexts. N.S.A. Collection of Bulk Call Data Is Ruled Illegal https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us/nsa-phone-records-collection-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us/nsa-phone-records-coll...

dontbenebby 7y ago

This is troubling since the courts have also argued lawsuits over illegal wiretapping and other misconduct cannot move forward as they would... expose classified information: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-legality-nsa-mass-spying-citing-secrecy-claims https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/judge-dodges-legality-... Without the ability for the press to publicize illegal actions so that voters can remove officials who allow it, the US government can engage in unconstitutional conduct with almost zero oversight by making the illegal conduct classified.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
I would argue that this is the intended outcome. I do not believe we have enough control over our government. Edit: I guess I should add that a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world, because they think it’s okay for “their side” to have absolute power over others. Often I think they associate “our side” to be the side of the “good guys” and thus find our grip on global hegemony acceptable. Except there are no “good guys” who always behave in a fair and even way, that is a childish fantasy used to keep us on board with the serious injustice perpetrated by governments the world over. The US government is responsible for oppression and murder the world over in addition to the good things we might do. We cannot blanket trust any government to behave appropriately in secrecy unless we want to simply abdicate our responsibility for the harm that governments then cause.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  You have the power to get the elected representatives to write and change every single law of government. But the citizenry often lacks the coordination, direction, and will to ensure the majority of representatives does so. The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. If indeed there is some classified information that shouldn't be exposed, that is extremely serious and can't just be aired like a tabloid news story. There is no simple way to keep the public informed of classified information. It's likely that the most reasonable safeguard is to have elected representatives with a strong moral code to vet the situation and act to protect their constituents.

Tortoise 7y ago

I suspect that it might be harder to extradite him on these offences because the extradition treaty between the US and the UK, like all such treaties, bans extradition for “political offences.” (See article 4-1) If he is extradited on the hacking offence the US can’t also try him for espionage without the UK’s permission.

gamblor956 7y ago
Espionage is not a political offense in either the US or the UK. A political offense means something like being charged with a crime for offending the "good name" of the prime minister (see, e.g., Turkey or India for examples).
- lucb1e 7y ago
  How in the world is being prosecuted for publishing a country's dirty laundry not the same as being prosecuted for a political offense... (Not saying you're wrong, just questioning whoever came up with that definition and if we should maybe change it.)
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Well, for starters all the information that Assange published while running Wikileaks embarasses the previous political administration, not the current (Trump) administration... Moreover, Assange isn't being charged with embarassing anyone, since American journalists do that all the time. Assange is being charged with specific illegal acts that actual journalists don't do, like actually trying to break encryption on classified documents.
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      Journalists do try to break encryption on classified documents, and Assange is not being charged with that. The documents were not encrypted and were obtained in cleartext from Manning.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

vermilingua 7y ago

So did he commit espionage, or expose war crimes? Let’s hope the courts decide wisely, because this case will settle the question of whether governments and militaries can be held accountable by their people.

Causality1 7y ago
Both.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  To expand, he exposed war crimes. But he also exposed a bunch of unrelated, not-war-crime stuff due to his refusal to redact. Contrast that with e.g. Snowden or the Panama Papers leakers, who disclosed information more carefully.
  - maxlybbert 7y ago
    I don’t think you have to make the distinction. Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. It is true those things could influence whether charges are filed, or pardons granted. IIRC, it’s the legal difference between an affirmative defense and simply being innocent.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > Espionage is espionage regardless of what you’re looking for or what you find. Having pure motives doesn’t matter. The Espionage Act is framed within the confines of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Being a journalist (i.e. taking an active role in curating and analyzing the materials) has historically mattered to the courts (e.g. around Deep Throat).
auntienomen 7y ago
It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information detailed war crimes. Some did not; some of it was diplomatic cables, lists of informants, etc. Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. Maybe we can agree to forgive him for the portion of the espionage which exposed war crimes, but I see no reason he should be given blanket immunity for everything he's done.

yakshaving_jgt 7y ago

[Before Snowden] People on HN: Of course the government aren't spying on citizens. What are you? Some kind of tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theory nutjob? [After Snowden] People on HN: Well obviously the government were spying on everyone. Were you really that naïve? [Before Assange Indictment] People on HN: That Assange guy is a completely delusional whack-job. How can anyone be so stupid to believe the UK/Sweden would cooperate with the US in taking him down permanently? [After Assange Indictment] [crickets (for now at least)]

mcv 7y ago
That's an extreme misrepresentation. Unless your argument is that on this site there was probably someone who held that opinion at the time. But before Snowden, many people here were under no delusions about US government spying, and few people have ever doubted the UK's willingness to cooperate with the US on anything. People only doubted, and still doubt, Sweden's willingness to extradite Assange to the US for espionage. They don't do that. Sweden wants him for rape.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Sweden allows the CIA to just black bag people, outside of the legal system. That's the fear of being extradited to Sweden; the UK doesn't allow the CIA to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
  - mcv 7y ago
    Not good, but also not the same thing. This was deportation of asylum seekers to Egypt, not extradition to the US. Edit: it's also not true that the UK doesn't deport who shouldn't be deported. Just a random search result: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/09/revealed-five-men-killed-since-being-deported-uk-jamaica-home-office https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/09/revealed-fiv...
    - 7y ago

thomascgalvin 7y ago

This is the most important part of the indictment, and it's right on page one: > ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public. The main charge here is that Assange actively encouraged people to break the law. Since he wasn't a US citizen and had not signed a non-disclosure agreement with the United States, many of the laws protecting classified information do not apply to him directly. The first section of the indictment describes the various ways in which Assange and/or Wikileaks said, more or less, "gee, it sure would be nice if someone got these classified documents for us." The next section, titled "B. Chelsea Manning Responded to ASSANGE'S Solicitation and Stole Classified Documents from the United States", explains how Assange's solicitation lead directly to the criminal acts committed by Manning. Finally, we have a section labeled "C. ASSANGE Encouraged Manning to Continue Her Theft of Classified Documents and Agreed to Help Her Crack a Password Hash to a Military Computer". This described how Assange provided Chelsea Manning with tools allowing her to circumvent passwords and other protections on classified computers. So this isn't as simple as "a journalist received classified information and is being prosecuted for it." This indictment lays out a very specific crime, which is (Assange) directly encouraging and enabling another individual (Manning) to commit a crime (Espionage) on his behalf. You can argue about the validity of these charges, even the validity of the classifications levels assigned to some of the material given to Assange, but we should be clear about exactly what is being claimed by the government, as well.

TomMckenny 7y ago
The charge could have been limited to working on cracking the password. Instead it explicitly describes activity common to reporters and critical for democracy: publishing information the source obtained "illegally". In quotes because a government with something to hide will generally hide it under a national security secrets act. Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".
- 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dev_dull 7y ago

It’s amazing to me the distinction the government is making here with Wikileaks. How many things related to the Russian probe were leaked last year? Wasn’t it one “bombshell” after another? No problems there even though that information turned out to be false but was plastered across every tv screen in the country.

duxup 7y ago
Reporters who reported on those leaks are largely in the clear. Had they tried to give someone help someone " (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information" ... they likely would be in a lot of trouble. Such as "hey man here's how to hack Muller's computer" and so forth (that's a very blunt example but it would qualify). That isn't a line that gets crossed by reporters very often in the US. It's hard to talk about in here as so few people want to talk about the actual charges, but that step in assisting (or trying to) is the key to these charges.
- AshamedCaptain 7y ago
  So what is the following page, other than a tool to help circumvent legal safeguards on information? It even includes information on how to encrypt your leak so that you're not caught... https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips
  - duxup 7y ago
    Encrypting your own information, or providing information is clearly not the same as "here's how to hack someone's computer" (again blunt example but it is the gist of the difference).
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Of course reporters are largely in the clear based on what we know so far. But the DOJ and intelligence agency officers who selectively leaked information about the Russia investigation and unmasked people to the press in order to foment their own narrative should technically be prosecuted just as Manning and Snowden were. If enough insiders keep doing it and they all mostly agree with each other, and they are the only ones in charge of initiating these prosecutions, obviously they aren't going to prosecute themselves for breaking the rules in the same manner they went after relative outsiders such as Manning and Snowden. And they obviously would turn a blind eye to reporters they are cozy with, compared to how deeply they looked into Assange.

citilife 7y ago

I still don't really understand how a journalist, non-U.S. citizen, operating entirely outside the U.S. is being indicted for anything. I understand he obtained U.S. documents and published them. However, if I obtain on-the-ground images of the Tiananmen Square protests and share them on Facebook with my friend group, should I be subject to Chinese laws? I don't live in China, I don't have Chinese citizenship, I've never been to China. Should I be subject to Chinese law?

eurg 7y ago
China would say yes, and in such a case you should not ever be in a state that has and/or requires good diplomatic relationship with, or economic support from, China. Law is, after all, what gets executed, and debating whether it's right or wrong is a luxury you don't have when it's executed on you.
- dpwm 7y ago
  China actually hasn't overstated its jurisdiction anywhere near as egregiously as the US has.
  - eurg 7y ago
    Where they do have power, they wield it. See: international relations regarding Taiwan.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      They don't see their relations with Taiwan as international.
      - function_seven 7y ago
        Read it as "See: international relations [with the rest of the world] regarding [the subject of] Taiwan"
  - 7y ago

filleokus 7y ago

I wonder what will happen with regard to the extraditions. Apparently Sweden has issued an European Arrest Warrant to get him to Sweden after he has served his current British sentence (for skipping bail). EAW's are (apparently) different to the normal extradition process, and is more streamlined and does not involve diplomatic channels. I've heard Swedish law commentators say that the EAW would be honoured before any non-EU extradition, if this was a normal case. If he eventually get's to Sweden before the US, it will be very interesting to see if Sweden will turn him over. I would guess so, but perhaps that's just my teenage bitterness from the The Piratebay trial still lingering...

gsnedders 7y ago
Precedence of the extradition requests is a matter for the Home Secretary, if I'm not mistaken, and there are various guidelines to determine which request should be given precedence. Given the previous EAW was withdrawn due to the impossibility of serving it, it is relatively likely any new EAW will be considered practically identical to the original one and therefore the date of the original warrant used to grant precedence. There's also the matter of statute of limitations: the Swedish offences (one? two? I forget how many of the original four have passed the limit) need to go to court in the relatively near future, whereas the US offences have no limit as I understand it; this furthers the argument that the Swedish request should be given precedence. As for whether he gets to Sweden before the US, remember that he can then challenge the extradition to the US in both Swedish and English courts, and Sweden considers espionage a political crime for which it won't extradite. (Okay, very hypothetically extraordinary rendition has happened from Sweden with some level of Swedish consent before, but for such a thing to be done to such a high profile person would be… truly extraordinary.)
anthuman 7y ago
Of course Sweden is going to turn him over. Why do you think the "rape" case magically appeared in sweden? Just like how "rape" case magically appeared for kavanaugh. Just like how "rape" case magically appeared for bill clinton. Of course the Trump. Whenever the "elites" want to attack someone, they love to use "sexual assault" as weapon to try and take down their targets. Sweden is a tiny vassal state of the US. They'll do as they are told.

auntienomen 7y ago

In case anyone actually wants to read the indictment (which for some reason neither the Times nor the Post links to): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6024842/Assange-superseding-indictment.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6024842/Assange-s...

bezoisevil 7y ago

Assange and WikiLeals are traitors. I supported the hell out of them in the beginning but they crossed the line with Russia

mLuby 7y ago

Legal question: if Charlie steals classified files and gives them to Ann, and then Bob gives Charlie $1M (no known connection between Bob and Charlie), can Bob be prosecuted for post-facto "encouraging sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to Ann for public dissemination; and (iii) continuing the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to Ann for distribution to the public"?

bArray 7y ago

It really is a fucked up world we live in, where a whistle-blower exposing Western governments for acting illegally is arrested and the persons who were spying on people have little to no consequences. I hope these charges get dropped, he has done and continues to do a great service to the world. The West got caught with their trousers down and they just need to deal with it. If you don't like get caught, stop acting in bad faith against the people. I think Assange's self-imprisonment should also be considered in any punishment, there's no doubt that it took a toll on his mental and physical well-being.

zanny 7y ago
The journalist that leaked the panama papers was murdered while nobody was arrested for hundreds of billions in money laundering and tax evasion.
- nikeee 7y ago
  > The journalist that leaked the panama papers was murdered How do we know that he was murdered when he was anonymous? Am I missing something?
  - e12e 7y ago
    I assume it's a reference to the journalist reporting on the papers: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb...
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      Nothing suggests that her killing had anything to do with the Panama Papers either, she reported on many things.

bb88 7y ago

It looks like all counts were from 2010, and not anything to do with the 2016 election. [DOJ Indictment: 1] Much of it has to do with First Amendment issues, sure. But not all of it. A large piece of his crimes were conspiracy to access computers without authorization. I'm not sure the Julian Assange hill is the one I'd die on if I was worried about first amendment protection of the press. [DOJ Indictment: 1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1165566/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1165566...

ipqk 7y ago
Julian Assange is exactly the hill I'd die on, because rights apply to all people, even the worst. And that's how they start chipping away at them.
- bb88 7y ago
  If you want to make sure (like I do) that journalism isn't criminalized -- then you probably should not label criminal activity as journalism.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Care to take a guess at what the password was? If you do, should we both be indicted for conspiracy to access a military computer system?
    - bb88 7y ago
      You mean guessing a password on a computer system with warning messages that say: "This is a classified system. Unauthorized access is a violation of US Code punishable by up to 20 years in prison" ? No.

dialoguediscou 7y ago

Extremely interesting article!

snissn 7y ago

Any Australians have particular concern about their fellow citizen?

ggm 7y ago
He is receiving his full consular assistance entitlements. They are scant. What I think about him isn't the point here, what needs to be understood is that he is entitled to help from the embassy, and though said through gritted teeth, no Australian Minister for foreign affairs has ever said they are denying him support, and have said in very luke-warm voice they confirm he is being offered them. They don't amount to much. They confirm he has access to a lawyer. They confirm his state of health. They can't get him out of Belmarsh, or prevent the extradition.
perilunar 7y ago
He's probably safer in the UK. If he was here we'd probably have extradited him already.

jackfoxy 7y ago

Way back before he holed-up in the Ecuadorian, well before his hero status in some quarters tarnished from the 2016 election, I had this guy pegged as a Russian operative. I'm sure he probably viewed himself as in charge. The nature of espionage has certainly changed over the decades. We can't allow free-lance operatives (more in line, I think, with his self image) to conduct espionage against us. He's a legitimate target.

socceroos 7y ago
For what reason? Lots of "anti-USA" leaks?
- jackfoxy 7y ago
  It's fallen into the memory hole. See the current Wikipedia page, no mention of Assange's ideologies from teenage years all the way through founding WikiLeaks. And also no information doing simple internet searches. I'm not motivated to try digging deeper, because, well...not worth the effort. IIRC (...and maybe I don't) it was easy to run across allegations (which seemed to make sense) of his ideological leanings...I think related to hangers-on of the cult his mother got the family involved in. That and his frequent appearances on Russian media at the time (8+ years ago). People forget, and however it happens, information falls into the memory hole.

SuperNinKenDo 7y ago

I really wish I hadn't peaked the comments on there.

mar77i 7y ago

Listen to Eisenhower's farewell address and read up on JFK assassination, about which Trump so conveniently blocked a load of material until 2021. How much more important can the secret service be than the government?

otakucode 7y ago

I am primarily concerned with how the government establishes jurisdiction in this case. Assange is a foreigner, and every single one of his actions were done in a foreign country. At what point does the United States government gain the authority to apply United States legal code to his actions? There might be an obvious answer to this, but I honestly don't understand it.

henryfjordan 7y ago
He conspired with a US citizen to break into a military computer. The jurisdiction applies to the whole conspiracy, so Assange can be charged.

colordrops 7y ago

To see all the concern here in this community I trust to be objective and fair is heartening. Based on what you see in social and mainstream media, you'd think Assange is a demon who deserves no justice and that journalism/free speech is not a protected right.

mensetmanusman 7y ago

What good could this possibly serve to imprison him? Shouldn’t western governments be spending more time supporting destabilizing efforts in authoritarian countries?

entropea 7y ago
>Shouldn’t western governments be spending more time supporting destabilizing efforts in authoritarian countries? No? That's for the people of the country to do, not foreign powers. There has never in history been a government that hasn't fallen to its own people. There also isn't an example of US or Western imperialist forces 'destabilizing' that has lead to better conditions for the people of that country. Libya has open slave trade right now while people die with arm floaties crossing the Mediterranean.

dangbang 7y ago

Your government is rotten and corrupt, but you want more of it, and you vote for more, because you would rather have more "security" at the expense of the looming debt default (to which you are blind because you've got your Pinterest stock options).

chejazi 7y ago

So many smart tech people see IP as an issue when in actuality it's not much different from xenophobia stemming from blue-collar job "loss" in the US. Accept it will happen and become better from it.

thrwoafsdfad 7y ago

> tool of Russia’s election interference Now you know why 'lamestream' media is so mistrusted.

Tharkun 7y ago

We can only hope that US voters will end up electing a government with a functioning moral compass in the near future. Perhaps said government could end up pardoning the whistleblowers exposing the crimes of the previous governments. You could spend all day arguing whether Assange is a journalist/publisher, or whether he's still just Mendax getting his rocks off. You could argue about Manning and Snowden's methods. You could argue about every other whistleblower's way of coming forward. But you can't deny that each of these people exposed serious crimes perpetrated by the US government. Spying on citizens, torture, war crimes, etc.

netmonk 7y ago

Peoples talking about loss of justice. Do i have to remind that long before Weinstein (but this case it typical), allegated suspects are found guilty and suffer from irrationnal blaming and crowd punishment long before they face a real judge...thanks to ww2 and Nuremberg. This is what happens when justice system is more based on Public Relation than establishing the reality of facts and make a judgement from it.

0x445442 7y ago

I think this is largely a smoke screen and believe Assange will not be convicted of much. I think Assange has key information that will be useful in establishing that the prior administration used the DOJ and FBI to spy on political adversaries during a campaign year and I think the current administration, DOJ and FBI are intent on making that case.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> The United States has asked Britain to extradite Mr. Assange, who is fighting the move, and the filing of the new charges clears the way for British courts to weigh whether it would be lawful to transfer custody of him to a place where he will face Espionage Act charges. Unfortunately, with Theresa May's resignation today (effective 7 June) the way the wind blows is that Boris Johnson will become the new leader of the Tory party and prime minister of the UK. I can't imagine that the US extradition request will be resisted for very long after that. Interstingly, unless the UK finds a way to extradite Assange to two nations at once, this will rather leave the Swedish prosecutor who asked for it first with a bit of an embarassing turn of events to deal with. I really don't see the UK (especially the UK under BoJo) giving priority to a rape trial in Sweden over an espionage trial in the US. One of those is much more photogenic.

quotz 7y ago

This is very troubling. Very, very troubling. I really hope that the West doesnt become like the Chinese and Middle East governments...

Sovereigns 7y ago

When everyone learns just who the Natives of North and South America. Then Americus Empire would get back Recognition to what is Fact. Americus Empire was already Recognized as a Nation and as world citizens as far back as 422b.c. These are recorded facts that sits in archives one being in central park of N.Y.C. When the linguistics are followed and read in the ancient first Coptic language, Renegade laws will stop assuming jurisdiction in North and South America. May I add, "there" (white tribes, Royals of UK):have exact and total jurisdiction because those ways and customs are theirs. Americus Empire is The Camels Eye Treaty under cosus omasus law. Newcomers and Government refer and may be better familiar with The Eye of Isis Treaty. I bet everyone that would love to believe that I am mistaken does not even know your Treaty just like the rest of First Nations people that are classified as prisoners of war under international law. Treason is what domestic Renegade laws of North America are in violation of. Assumed Jurisdiction continues because The Indian doesn't even know who they are and that's just what the royal proclamation intended. Spirit and intent was to destroy my race and have power over Mother Earth's land.