Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange

August 01, 2019 "Information Clearing House" - A US judge has ruled that WikiLeaks was fully entitled to publish the Democratic National Congress (DNC) emails, which means no law was broken. The ruling is highly significant as it could impact upon the US extradition proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as well as the ongoing imprisonment of whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

The ruling

On 30 July, federal judge John G. Koeltl ruled on a case brought against WikiLeaks and other parties in regard to the alleged hacking of DNC emails and concluded that:

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.

Well now, finally a judge with some common sense, in my opinion.

I never could get over the double standards shown in Assange's case....

Evidently this judge saw the hypocrisy in it all too?

Now that Assange is probably ready for a "rubber room" mentally.....he might get released after current sentence is up?

Here's hoping for the best with Julian.. may he get released and come home to Oz for some needed recuperation.

Pravdaseeker

Yes, Judge Koeltl deserves recognition for an honest and appropriate ruling. This shows there is at least one honest man on the federal bench.

Is he the only one?

Freedom of the Press?
Wikileaks is essentially press so it makes sense.

Glad to hear of this.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

That article feels a little misleading to me. They ruled he was allowed to publish documents . But I didn’t see any ruling on how JA gained possession of the material . Yet it was a significant part of the judges decision .

A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.

How they were obtained hasn’t been settled especially in the Manning case .

In that case the allegations are that Assange and Manning were co-conspirators .

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: Fallingdown

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Greetings Fallingdown, agreed that it doesn't settle all questions or accusations against the man.

I believe the co-conspirator stuff is a bit trumped up as well; again my opinion only.

To me it seems no different than papers pumping "deep throat" for information during Nixon's troubled times.

It's all a political event, USA mad that their bad deeds were brought to the light of day, so shoot the messenger mentality prevailed.

Pravdaseeker

As an Aussie the way our Government regularly washes its hands of our citizens when it comes to US laws and extradition makes me furious.
We were the only western country that allowed its citizens to be held in Gitmo and now this amongst other things.

Grow some balls Australia and ffs put in some effort to get this bloke back home.

I don't like this. It feels like legalizing "fencing", so long as the fence didn't request the thief to steal those items, that he's about to sell and profit from.

In this case the stolen property is intellectual property. And, there are all kinds of laws that protect intellectual property from corporate spying, which is what the DNC theft amounts to, in my opinion. Thieves stole intellectual property and JA fenced it, through WikiLeaks, which the Trump campaigned strategically used and benefited from.

Freedom of press doesn't allow piracy of music, books, movies and certainly not stolen corporate secrets, and I don't see how this particular case can't be prosecuted as such.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I don't like this. It feels like legalizing "fencing", so long as the fence didn't request the thief to steal those items, that he's about to sell and profit from.

In this case the stolen property is intellectual property. And, there are all kinds of laws that protect intellectual property from corporate spying, which is what the DNC theft amounts to, in my opinion. Thieves stole intellectual property and JA fenced it, through WikiLeaks, which the Trump campaigned strategically used and benefited from.

Freedom of press doesn't allow piracy of music, books, movies and certainly not stolen corporate secrets, and I don't see how this particular case can't be prosecuted as such.

I understand your point, but if you are going to make that your standard, then anything leaked to the press, and then reported on would make the media complicit, and subject to prosecution.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: pravdaseeker

That article feels a little misleading to me. They ruled he was allowed to publish documents . But I didn’t see any ruling on how JA gained possession of the material . Yet it was a significant part of the judges decision .

A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.

How they were obtained hasn’t been settled especially in the Manning case .

In that case the allegations are that Assange and Manning were co-conspirators .

www.newsweek.com...

"Allegations" are not a basis for prosecution. You need evidence. Personally, I don't think Assange is a great guy. He would sell out his own mother in a heartbeat, but he is innocent, until proven guilty. If they had a good case, I doubt extradition would be blocked.

a reply to: pravdaseeker


Could the UK even extradite Assange now that the US has a federal death penalty again?

a reply to: Mach2

The charges were on the sealed indictment the US his had for Assange from 2017. During Manning’s pre-trial hearing it was revealed that they had emails between Julian Assange and Manning discussing cracking the password.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Mach2

The charges were on the sealed indictment the US his had for Assange from 2017. During Manning’s pre-trial hearing it was revealed that they had emails between Julian Assange and Manning discussing cracking the password.

There is the problem. Big difference legally between "discussing", and actually participating.

As I understand it, Manning asked for advice about cracking a hash, and sent the hash to Assange.

I haven't seen anything that said Assange did indeed crack it, and send tge decrypted password back.

If you can't prove otherwise, I doubt you prevail in court.

a reply to: pavil

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Hello pavil; that's a good question!

I don't have a clue about how the UK legal system would/could be affected by this decision.

I hope he somehow manages to avoid the USA extradition. The death penalty for what he allegedly did is a bit over the top.

There have been several spies that did a lot worse crimes/damage; and they just got jail time. One that comes to mind is Pollard? If I spelled that right..

With all that said above, even if Assange got released, I have a suspicion that some alphabet outfit would cause him to have an "accident". I hope I am very wrong on that, but there is a ton of deep state types that want "his head" mounted on a wall somewhere.

Assange exposed some pretty bad things going on. It caused the military to "clean up their act"; and stop being so loose when it comes to deciding to unleash weapons on people.

It was embarrassing, but was also needed. Even I with trifocals to see could tell those men walking along were reporters and a TV crew, NOT bad guys with an RPG..(The famous Apache shooting of people walking along..)

So, to me, Assange is a bit of a good guy...and did the right thing.

I think he would be a real pain the bum in real life, and hard to be friends with.

Pravdaseeker

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I don't like this. It feels like legalizing "fencing", so long as the fence didn't request the thief to steal those items, that he's about to sell and profit from.

In this case the stolen property is intellectual property. And, there are all kinds of laws that protect intellectual property from corporate spying, which is what the DNC theft amounts to, in my opinion. Thieves stole intellectual property and JA fenced it, through WikiLeaks, which the Trump campaigned strategically used and benefited from.

Freedom of press doesn't allow piracy of music, books, movies and certainly not stolen corporate secrets, and I don't see how this particular case can't be prosecuted as such.

I understand your point, but if you are going to make that your standard, then anything leaked to the press, and then reported on would make the media complicit, and subject to prosecution.

There's a difference between something that is stolen and a secret betrayed. Publishing stolen documents (intellectual property) is not the same as publishing willfully revealed secrets, through a secret holder.

a reply to: Mach2

Yep there is a big difference.

Instead of commission of a crime it’s called conspiracy .

a reply to: pravdaseeker

As much as I dislike Assange, I'd say the judge is correct. Believe me it pains me to say that. Wikileaks needs to distance themselves from him though if they want any future credibility. Assange needs to fade into the background and find another way to feed his huge ego and need for attention. I suspect the Ecuadorian's feel a bit silly for enabling him these days.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Haven't the US government already changed and said they weren't doing it for leaking but for apparently helping or influencing the guy and getting him to steal it? I'm sure that's what I read recently but I might be wrong. Side note: I think he shouldn't be sent to the states, I honestly think this is most likely a set up. I've said before I think what we'll see is:

The US ask for extradition, the UK says no.
Sweden asks for extradition for the "secret sex" claim and the UK says yes and sends him over.
The US asks Sweden for him and Sweden says yes and the US gets their man. Either that or he will suddenly turn up with another case of suicide.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Mach2

Yep there is a big difference.

Instead of commission of a crime it’s called conspiracy .

You are incorrect. Legally you have to prove he took actionable steps. Simply discussing something is not illegal, and I nope it never is.

Like I said, I don't particularly care for the guy, but I haven't seen conclusive evidence that he actually participated in the hacking. He may very well have, and if it can be proven, to prison he will go.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Mach2

The charges were on the sealed indictment the US his had for Assange from 2017. During Manning’s pre-trial hearing it was revealed that they had emails between Julian Assange and Manning discussing cracking the password.

Isn't that the same as giving someone advice on how to pick a lock? Would that be illegal?

a reply to: Mach2

Here’s the pertinent part of the US statute .

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1001