Grand jury meets to decide fate of WikiLeaks founder A federal grand jury in Virginia is meeting to decide whether to bring spying charges against Julian Assange, an attorney for the imprisoned WikiLeaks founder said over the weekend. “We have heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empaneled grand jury in Alexandria (Virginia),” attorney Mark Stephens told Al- …
You can't, because it hasn't.
Even Robert Gates has said it's nothing that wasn't already known.
What's happened is that the USA is embarrassed and thinks that squealing "national security!" and "lives in danger!" will somehow hide their discomfort and deflect attention from their actions. I personally hope that they don't get away with it.
Land of the free my arse.
I too have friends an family who are and have been in the forces abroad, I hope that they come back safe, I also hope that they don't find themselves in a position where they kill innocent people, unarmed reporters, throw dogs off cliffs. I hope if they do, through mistakes or because of the psychological pressure they are under that they get support to allow them to re-engage into society and live their lives, they are victims too and will need support. Depending on who you believe, between 100,000 and 500,000 people have been killed in recent years, the people on the ground killing each other (in a somewhat one-sided war) are not responsible.
Assange did not create the environment, he has been passed factual information from people who know who's responsibility this is, he is not risking anyones life, the reason why only a fraction has been released is because of the filtering that has taken place.
"Assange did not create the environment, he has been passed factual information from people who know who's responsibility this is, he is not risking anyones life, the reason why only a fraction has been released is because of the filtering that has taken place."
No. Assnage didn't create the documents. They exist because intelligence comes from many different sources and sometimes each piece of intelligence by itself isn't dangerous. Its when they combine the data, real intelligence occurs. Sort of like finding pieces about you in public information on the web and then putting them together to find information you would like to keep private.
The danger occurs in that the leak causes embarrassments, and future trust issues so that gaining potential valuable intel may be impossible. The danger is that some information could only come from a handful of sources and now those sources disappear.
The real danger is that idiots like Assnage and others believe that only the US does this. Here's a free clue. ALL COUNTRIES ENGAGE IN THIS INTEL GATHERING.
The damage has been done. The release did nothing but create FUD.
Assnage left his source hanging and now he's going to feel the full weight of US law.
This may piss people off, but the facts are the facts and Assnage broke the law. He knew what he was doing and willfully committed a crime which has serious consequences.
Look on the bright side. If this happened to the KGB, Assnage would be dead by now.
but the facts are the facts and Assnage broke the law. He knew what he was doing and willfully committed a crime which has serious consequences."
Just for us non-lawyer types, which laws did he break again?
And yes if it was under the KGB he'd be dead by now. But he's currently got the populace and government of the USA- not exactly the least likely people to kill him- rather riled up. He'll end up dead within hours if (or rather when) he gets extradited.
>>when they combine the data, real intelligence occurs. Sort of like finding pieces about you in public information on the web and then putting them together to find information you would like to keep private.
Yes, perhaps the government should filter all news, perhaps changing anything they don't like and send it to room 101 - You do know you're advocating 1984 type controls?
>>This may piss people off, but the facts are the facts and Assnage broke the law. He knew what he was doing and willfully committed a crime which has serious consequences.
OK, today I will almost certainly do things which are in contravention of laws in other countries, some of which have a death penalty attached, if I'm lucky I will be having sex outside of marrage, this will be in contravention of Sharia law of which, depending on the state the penalty can be death (see the case of Safiya Hussaini), how do we decide which laws from other countries are OK to follow and which are not? The US may want to apply 1917 sedation and more recent Patrot Acts to everybody, but in what way is this different to any other law from a foreign country being imposed?
>>Look on the bright side. If this happened to the KGB, Assnage would be dead by now.
Do you honestly think that he would be alive if he wasn't so high profile and had already put out encrypted copies that have the key released if he ends up dead? Assnage knows exactly what the USA is capable of (because he read it in the documents that have been released and documents that he has not).
US Attorney General Eric Holder has said his agency has “a very serious, active, ongoing investigation that is criminal in nature".
It is indeed criminal in nature, Mr. Holder.
Well, if worst comes to worst Assange can still ask the judge about a few Israeli spies that have been caught basically in front of the Xerox and sent packing without so much as a shrug (and this includes Mr. Dough Feith, aka. "dumbest fucking guy on the planet"). And these were US citizens.
>>"Well, if worst comes to worst Assange can still ask the judge about a few Israeli spies that have been caught ..."
He can *ask*, but I can't see it would do any good - just because one person may have got away with something doesn't mean that a law ceases to be applicable to anyone else.
It could also be that there are some things where the government minds less if some people know rather than others, or if fewer people know rather than more.
Effectively, it's a government's call who to press charges against, the same way it's a citizen's call whether to press charges if they're burgled.
It might not be /fair/, but it's not exactly unpredictable either.
"Charges based on a law written last Century almost 100 years ago"
I don't care if it was tattooed on Benjamin Franklin's arse by George Washington - US law does not apply to non-US citizens acting outside of the US. END OF. Do you need me to repeat that as that basic principle of international law always seems to get lost in translation to US English?
I don't think Assange is a hero - I don't have particularly strong feelings on his character one way or the other. This has become about something much more important - The US belief that they can impose their laws and their will on the rest of the world whenever they want and I do have particularly strong feelings about that:
'America? Fuck no.'
"US law does not apply to non-US citizens acting outside of the US. END OF. Do you need me to repeat that as that basic principle of international law always seems to get lost in translation to US English?"
There definitely are exceptions, eg. murdering US citizens abroad or blowing up a US embassy is an offence under US law, whether or not the country you're in has an effective judicial system. Even in the UK, we have laws that apply to non-UK citizens acting outside the UK, even if no UK interests are affected. (Don't believe me? Hint: Bosnia).
" murdering US citizens abroad " - surely this is illegal wherever "abroad" is, and would be tried as such.
" blowing up a US embassy " - As above ^^
I find your conclusions based on this weak defence flawed... if I went to the USA (where I am not from), and killed my missus, and was found out, I surely would be sentenced there, no? Likewise if I went to Germany, or the UK, or god forbid, France...
The embassy thing is a bit more complicated, but not much...
I *guess* that if they were going to be arguing that he's effectively guilty of collusion or conspiracy in the illegal act of obtaining the information, claiming that he actually encouraged removal of the information (and so maybe bypassing protection for journalists), they'd also be claiming that wherever he was at the time things happened, he was conspiring in a criminal act which was going to take place on US territory.
I'm not sure what the relevant precedents for that might be when it comes to extradition, but they might have at least the makings of some kind of case.
"murdering US citizens abroad - surely this is illegal wherever "abroad" is, and would be tried as such"
Tried by who exactly? And you say "surely"... what if it's not illegal in that country, or if the particular country where the murder occurred refuses to act? Think Libya, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or whatever. Or what if the murder occurs in international waters, eg. Palestinian terrorists hijacking a yacht with American tourists and murdering the captain? (That was years ago, I can't remember the details, and might even have been in Italian waters but the Italians let them go as part of a hostage deal, then the Americans caught the hijackers while they were sailing back across the Mediterranean and tried them in the USA... something like that.)
And what's with the down vote? I didn't say I agreed with extraterritoriality, just pointed out that there ARE laws that apply to other country's citizens committing acts in other countries. In the UK for example we have laws about war crimes and crimes against humanity that would apply wherever in the world the offence took place. Are you saying I'm not correct, or simply that you don't like the conclusion?
@"There definitely are exceptions, eg. murdering US citizens abroad" etc.... "is an offence under US law"
No, murdering *anyone* abroad is a murder in that country, so a matter for the legal system in that country.
Embassies however are less clear. Whilst they do have some legal privileges and protection, they are still under the territorial laws of the host country.
Put simply even from a moral perspective, the US doesn't have the right to impose its laws on the rest of the world. (If it did, we all would need to have the power to vote in each president (of the world), because otherwise they would rule us without representation. That’s a dictatorship. Even worse, it would be their global dictatorship!
So no matter what the US government wants the world to do, they are not our keepers. The US represents only 4.5% of the world's population, so their leaders need to learn they don't run the world!
US laws apply to anyone who breaks them. Regardless of their citizenship. By your reasoning, I could go to Britain break their laws and get away with it because I'm an American.
Faulty logic aside, the grand jury will determine if the US has presented enough evidence of Assnage breaking the law.
I would suggest you learn more about international law before condemning the US Govt.
The law that put E.E. Cummings in prison for expressing nothing more than insufficient hatred toward Germans? The law that imprisoned pacifists for handing out anti-draft pamphlets? That law?
The law that was passed during a spasm of war-time, nationalist hysteria to quiet fears that the Kaiser had infiltrated the "Home Front" but in application infringed free speech? The law that caused newspapers to declare the "End of Liberty?" The law which is considered by historians and constitutional scholars to be an artifact of American history that only hung around because of the Red Scare? That law?
The law is on the books and therefore appropriate. How it is used is going to be based on the circumstances of the time.
If you haven't figured it out. We're at war with a group of people who will kill you because you don't walk, talk, think or act like them.
So I'd say that Assnage is on thin ice and has pretty much alienated most governments. Just the way he wants it ...
A bit of a pity, that. Not because he hasn't managed to put himself right in everybody's faces for quite the while. More because it deprives us of seeing "Lady Gaga" voted man... of the year.
Hm? Why yes, it IS cold out. How thoughtful of you, thank you.
'Assange to be voted time man of the year?... ....More because it deprives us of seeing "Lady Gaga" voted man... of the year.'
I heard a rumour, (or was it a leak?), that the CD with the cables/warlogs etc. previously had "Lady Gaga" tunes on it, so you never know. What I can say with certainty, however, is that I have never seen either of them in the same room together.
One could easily imagine that the sexual assault charges, conveniently coming when they do, are straight out of a Hollywood conspiracy film. On the other, given what one knows about Assange's character (an arrogant, self-righteous prig who thinks he's above the law and God's gift to mankind), who knows how he might treat a woman who dares to turn him down?
"who knows how he might treat a woman who dares to turn him down?"
Which woman turned him down? Are you referring to the "rape" charges.
I think you might be well advised to read this link (and yes, it is a Daily Fail article, but even they can manage to do real journalism ocassionally)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html
There is no "turning him down" involved.
Sure, Assange was stupid and quite selfish in his actions but this case is more about the jealousy of one of the women involved.
Ok, would you care to explain the difference between:
"That Assange. He's a good bloke, fighter for truth and all. Must be a put up job, girl's obviously lying, we should brush it under the carpet. Tell you what, give her a grilling and point out she'll be made to look a tart in court. She'll drop the charges."
And:
"That Harrington-Smythe chap. He's a good bloke, Eton and Oxford and a rugger blue too . Must be a put up job.......etc."
As it escapes me. Is Wikileaks the new "old school tie"?
>>"Ok, would you care to explain the difference between:..."
The difference is that for the subset of Wikileaks supporters who go for the black/white worldview rather than even tying to see other points of view, Assange is currently in their 'likes' group, whereas the old Etonian probably isn't.
The tricky thing is that though I'm sure there are many Wikileaks supporters who really don't know what happened in Sweden, who aren't entirely prejudging the case, they're less likely to keep mentioning that than the people who absolutely *know* what happened, whether they've decided it's a CIA plot or a lover scorned or a crusading feminist.
The *potential convenience* of the charges isn't going to be lost on anyone, even people at the other extreme who want to conclude for their own reasons that he's definitely guilty.
However, it does seem that some people assume that anyone not repeatedly shouting that it's a setup must somehow be less intelligent and have either missed the possibility that things aren't kosher, or be part of the Conspiracy.
There is a sliding scale of what is meant by the term rape in Sweden, with the upper end being a violent physical assault, and the lower end meaning sex by coercion - basically if you've ever lied your way into bed, or whined that it's your birthday and you are entitled to that little bit extra, you would be indictable under Swedish law.
The Swedish prosecutor wants to question him over an allegation made at the lower end of the spectrum, also the complainant didn't make a formal complaint initially but approached the police for 'guidance'.
Sure it would be great to just have a trial on the evidence and be done with it, but sure as a sure thing once he is in Sweden he will be rendered to the US.
....for serious criminal charges (felonies only?) a jury is convened in secret to review the charges and preliminary evidence to decide if there is enough to pursue a formal charge (indictment). There is a saying that, more or less, "[a good Prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich]" so please expect to be a high standard of evidence or anything - for the most part it's a formality and grand juries rarely reject anything. As it is a procedural issue before a charge is ever handed down, there is no ability to defend oneself at a grand jury - while at the same time the only decision they make is if the Prosecutor is allowed to indict the person(s) in question. They make no determination of guilt or innocence.
*Normal disclaimers apply - by "good Prosecutor" I mean one that is adept at his craft and not some sort of judgement on his/her character
A grand jury is supposed to be an independent body that is essentially supposed to investigate and try the prosecution to ensure any evidence is sufficient for trial. As such is was originally a two edged sword in that if the grand jury thought the prosecutor was on a personal vendetta or corrupt, they were quite within their rights to spin the case the opposite way and have the prosecutor tried for abuse of power or corruption. The sad reality is that too many people have watched one episode of [insert court/police drama name here] and so believe the so called "good guys" to be infallible. As always, the final line of defense is jury nullification which can be undertaken by either the grand or petite jury.
No, IANAL but have suffered the indignity of sitting on both types of jury with both the "hang 'em high" and "stick it to the man" whack job types. With a grand jury being 23 people you get more of both and a bigger headache.
USA wants to prosecute an Australian for actions done in Europe.
Does this mean more civilized countries can issue arrest warrants for CORRUPTION towards the democrats and republicans over those so-called "campaign contributions" which are illegal over here?
Or maybe it's time those Yanks got hit over the head with a BIG cluebat about "international does NOT mean 50 states." or "federal law is NOT international", right before all their diplomatic passports were cancelled over the VIOLATION of the Vienna accord (Hillary Clinton asking UN Diplomats to spy for her), and all their less-than-valuable people got sent home.
Anon, because I'm sure there's a US law against disliking corrupt politicans as well.
No, as the US has signed but not ratified it's membership in the International Criminal Court.(*1) As such, for all intents and purposes, American leaders cannot be held accountable by the international community. What's more, the International Criminal Court will not deal with issues of corruption. In fact, their jurisdiction covers only "the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression."(*2) Furthermore, in many cases the US has repeatedly not been opposed to declaring Universal Jurisdiction(*3) and simply going after someone it really wants.
Even if the ICC were willing to look into extraordinary corruption, (such as the rationale behind the US's recent wars of aggression,) the US has put an awful lot of effort to ensure that the people in power are exempt from such examination. (*4)
In short: the US can and will do whatever the hell it wants unless you happen to hide in China, Russia or a nation very closely allied with them. Everyone else is so dependant on the US(*5) that they simply will not risk themselves. That – just by the by – is something I find to be a huge shame. In my opinion, the US needs to be held to account. More specifically, its leaders need to be legally accountable for the actions of their country before the International Criminal Court.
At the moment however, nobody has the power to cause the US to even consider extradition of one of it’s ruling class.
*1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
*2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Crimes_within_the_jurisdiction_of_the_Court
*3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
*4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#Efforts_to_shield_Americans_from_ICC_jurisdiction
*5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella
If Sweden hand him over to them for an offence which is _NOT_ a crime in Sweden this becomes a precedent. At that point everyone and their dog will ignore the ICC and any other norm of law and consider it normal to bring formal charges against anyone their like and expect to be entitled for the suspect to be extradited.
Basically the equivalent will be Teheran instead of issuing fatwas issuing endightments and expecting the UK to extradite suspects who have insulted the supreme holiness of whichever Hitler wannabie they managed to elect this time. It is only a matter of time until this descends into abductions/terminations chaos.
It is about time the yanks comply with international law, take their best beloved principle of Universal jurisdiction and shove it where it belongs.
to decide on exactly the same thing.
And as I'm currently in the UK- current holding pen of Assange and a part of the EU where his crimes took place and where his servers are mostly based- I'm pretty sure I have more of a basis in law and sense than the Yanks do with their panel.
Actually, I hope the Americans pull this one off and Assange gets hauled off to a US prison. Then the precedent's set in International Law for us to haul all of their military commanders (including Commander in Chief Obama and former CIC Bush) and a good number of their soldiers over hot coals for mass-teamkilling.
Then get Hillary Clinton locked up for ordering people to spy on diplomats.
Ok, I get it. If you reveal secret documents that reveal that Hillary Clinton asked diplomats to spy for the US Government, then you are a spy... and nothing happens to Hillary Clinton? I'm not so naive to think that governments follow the rules all the time, but if you get caught, you should pay the price!
I don't think Wikileaks and Assange have done everything right. They should have never published the gossipy cables that pissed everyone off (everyone was too scared to go after them when they were publishing bigger stories). But ultimately all they've done is received and published some documents that were factual, and showed the Government doing things it's not supposed to do. In my books, that does not make you a spy, that makes you a good guy.
I'm in no way an activist, and have never even attended a protest before, but I'm very scared at what will happen next.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
