Julian Assange unlikely to be charged in US

The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say.

The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been taken and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impanelled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against the Australian, who has sought asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top secret military and diplomatic documents.

Julian Assange unlikely to be charged in US

Which is pretty much what sensible people have been suggesting for the last couple of years so not really a surprise.

One wonders what Assange will do now - there's still the Swedish charges of course, which are real although the case is still officially "under investigation" and he is "wanted for questioning" and not under arrest per se...and also the Swedes could do their questioning in the UK under various provisoins.

Haha. Is this a new tactic? I double dog dare him to walk outside that embassy. He'd be in an American jail cell faster then I could chug a beer.

"We promise we won't get you Assange"*wink* " HES OUTSIDE GET 'EM!!!"

I think this sentence is the most telling one.

government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say.

Oh they want Assange badly, they just don't want to compromise one of their most valuable assets, which is the MSM. They can't lock up their media lapdogs or god forbid the truth might come out.

Besides Snowden is the real threat, his leaks have already decimated relations between Australia and Indonesia, If I was the US administration I'd be very worried about the revelations he's yet to reveal.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Contrary to popular belief the 1st amendment does not protect news outlets when it comes to the release / printing of classified information. The Pentagon Papers fiasco only established that the government cannot invoke prior restraint when only embarrassment is the key factor.

The 2 journalist involved in the Pentagon Paper mess were actually charged with a crime for publishing classified info.

The result of the Supreme Court ruling -
* - embarrassment alone does not meet the legal line to restrict media.
* - The Supreme court never created protection to media outlets when it comes to classified information being released.

The 2 journalist were charged. The Prosecuting attorney involved screwed up paperwork, resulting in the charges being dropped. He never re-filed the charges.

I think the other factor in this decision was the end result of Manning's trial. They explored wikileaks and Assange connections. There was also an incident in Florida, if I remember right, dealing with a navy member trying to pass classified information on (FBI sting that was somehow linked into Manning's issues).

The only other plausible explanation I can think of is politics, specifically with this administration. The amount of leaks coming from the White House over the last few years placed our military / people in more danger than Assange's / Manning's release did.

Kind of difficult to take action on a topic when your just as guilty as those you are accusing.

IF Assange is prosecuted (and I think he should be) then Holder and everyone else involved in this administration who took curtain calls on the back of leaked information solely for political reasons and posturing, should pull their chairs up to the defense table alongside Assange....

What could they charge Julian with??
He is not a US citizen and his alleged crimes were committed outside of the US.
I'd say we have no charges against the man, he was only looking out for the worlds best interests.
Good thing the man is not one of those types with dual citizenship...

Hmm,a ploy to get him out of the embassy?
I still think he escaped months ago,probably in a burka.

I see it as (possibly) more evidence that Assange's WikiLeaks was part of the US government's attempt to battle against the banksters, neo-con military/industrial complex minions, and other global-corporate post-9/11 actors that have dominated the geopolitical landscape of the 21 century since the Bush/Cheney regime changed everything. WikiLeaks never accomplished what it set out to do, but it did hold some heat to some feet out there before the whole effort collapsed into meaninglessness. With the Anthrax threat still in existence, the US government's top tier of leadership can't do anything overt to take back control of its military, its economy or its part of the world's financial structure, so these little blips - like Assange and Snowden - pop up to try and make things tense for those forces that have been consistently trying to push the US and its expensive military into actions that will continue to feed the accounts of the principals engaged in this 12 yr old Anthrax extortion campaign.

Snowden is officially being pursued by the Obama Administration, but Russia is protecting him, and preventing the US Executive Branch from having to actually proceed with that pursuit, in the same way that Assange was protected. This is extremely high stakes stuff being carried out to allow the US to withdraw from the position of world police. Both of these "exposures" have enabled the US to refuse false flag scenarios and other events with global repercussions without technically violating the extortion demands. Plausible denial is what's being achieved, as these "troubling exposures" slowly result in more and more scope and latitude restriction being imposed upon those quasi-military private sector entities that have been feeding on the US war on terror. So far, no Anthrax releases, so that's good.

If true, then this will be a very long game that's being played, with more Assanges and Snowdens in our future.

Prosecuting someone who has received stolen information when your administration is the biggest information thief in the world might look . . . er . . . very hypocritical.

The US should focus on getting there house in order rather than pursuing the people who pointed this out to them (Assange and Snowden).

The whole world has lost faith in America and is not the fault of these individuals, but the Gov Departments themselves.

God Bless America x2

reply to post by Xcathdra

IF Assange is prosecuted (and I think he should be) then Holder and everyone else involved in this administration who took curtain calls on the back of leaked information solely for political reasons and posturing, should pull their chairs up to the defense table alongside Assange....

If Assange is not a citizen, he needs to be tried under espionage. I'm a little perplexed by your position (although I think it's great you lump politicians in with him).

If it were say, the FSB (KGB) who was responsible for setting up wikileaks, would you still believe action should be taken. Since they are too outside the country.

Now, understandably they are an organization and not a single person, but one could argue that wikileaks too is an organization.

Would the top brass of FSB be wholly responsible, and they should be tracked down and prosecuted, or should the US go to war with Russia in this case? I posit the question because it is funny how things change once something becomes political, or when something dealing with a single person changes once a flag is behind it.

I'm sure the Russians have been selling secrets for a good number of years now, and since a bunch of sleeper agents and active ones have been prosecuted or ejected from the country in the last few years, I kinda feel like it's a reasonable comparison.

Also, in light of the revelations with the NSA, who there should be prosecuted for espionage they committed in other countries?

boncho
If Assange is not a citizen, he needs to be tried under espionage. I'm a little perplexed by your position (although I think it's great you lump politicians in with him).

The espionage act is one possible avenue.. The others would be receiving classified information when not authorized to have it in possession. Distributing classified information knowing that information could be obtained by enemies of the US and used to harm US interests, etc etc etc.. I can keep going but at this point, the legalities involved have been debated back and forth.

As for his status as a non citizen in this area its not relevant. Reason being is you have 2 people who got together and acted to support the others activities - that brings into play conspiracy charges. Secondly we have treaty agreements with certain nations when it comes to classified information and unauthorized access / release of that info. Australia and the UK are signatories to those agreements. Whether the countries involved will act is up to them. Last I saw Australia did not seem interested in going after Assange - which is their choice.

As for my position - I'm not a fan of wikileaks and I cannot stand Julian Assange. he is a hypocritical ass hat whose ethics would raise eyebrows in the Court of Caligula. With that being said my position was present prior to all the other scandals that have occurred with this administration - up to and including curtain calls / politics. When compared side by side this Administration has put our military and civilians in greater peril than Manning or Assange have.

If this government wants to try and claim the moral high road by going after Assange, then they best be prepared to issue the very same charges to themselves, including treason since they are US citizens.

boncho
If it were say, the FSB (KGB) who was responsible for setting up wikileaks, would you still believe action should be taken. Since they are too outside the country.

Of course - and if we look back on history you will find incidents where foreign nationals in this country, and abroad, have been taken into custody and charged with violating US Federal Law / Military Law / Traties etc. The same holds true of American citizens who assisted foreign powers.

The issue in this part of your argument is the manner in which the scenario is layed out.

There is a huge difference when it comes to nation states spying on each other as opposed to individual citizens acting without their countries knowledge / consent. This is where this particular part of the argument becomes insane, since its ok for nations to engage in that activity but not individuals.

what's good for the goose eh?

As for crimes occurring and people being in other nations - We have extradition treaties with other nations, and vice versa. Those agreements revolve around nations cooperating when it comes to legal issues. The US is a signatory to the various treaties involving the arrest of foreign nationals and the Consular notification and access provisions of those treaties.

Charges can be laid...
Arrest warrant can be sought...
The judge can sign off on it and make it international...
That information goes to Interpol and is entered...
The person in question is red flagged and customs agencies of Interpol nations watch for and can detain...

At that point its up to the nations and their agreements on whether they honor the request or refuse it.

Use Yahoo or Google and type in refused extradition to see my point....

boncho
Now, understandably they are an organization and not a single person, but one could argue that wikileaks too is an organization.

The problem I see with this position is the definition of an organization. That definition will vary form nation to nation, based on local / federal laws of the various countries. You would need to look at the international legal standard, if one exists (I don't think that frame work is present). However we come back to US law being violated, where it is not relevant if the person in questions considers himself to be a member of the media. In this country there is no protection for Media when it comes to the release and publication of classified information.

In this area its not enough for people to think he is an organization. The standard used is 250+ years of US case law.

boncho
Would the top brass of FSB be wholly responsible, and they should be tracked down and prosecuted, or should the US go to war with Russia in this case? I posit the question because it is funny how things change once something becomes political, or when something dealing with a single person changes once a flag is behind it.

As I have stated there is a difference between nation states and individuals.

As for what should happen? Ask Julius and Ethal how it worked out for them.

In the case of Assange, he is not spying on behalf of Australia. He is acting on his own and in his own name for a cause he believes in. Whether we think his actions are noble or asinine is a personal question.. My only thought on that one is if you are going to play stickball in Brooklyn, you better know the rules.

boncho
I'm sure the Russians have been selling secrets for a good number of years now, and since a bunch of sleeper agents and active ones have been prosecuted or ejected from the country in the last few years, I kinda feel like it's a reasonable comparison.

I don't think its a good comparison simply because Wikileaks and Assange are not nation states or a member of a foreign intelligence agency.

It gets figuratively boiled down to - You cant arrest a nation for espionage.

Pollard... Rosenberg's... Powers...
US Government Security Breaches

boncho
Also, in light of the revelations with the NSA, who there should be prosecuted for espionage they committed in other countries?

edit on 26-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

That would be up to the countries' they spied on and their respective laws. However, before any of them are shipped out on foreign warrants, they first need to be brought up on charges here in the US and held accountable for violating the law and Public trust.

To expand on foreign governments and spying on them what we normally get is a prisoner exchange.. Our spies for their spies.

reply to post by Xcathdra

... I cannot stand Julian Assange. he is a hypocritical ass hat whose ethics would raise eyebrows in the Court of Caligula.

I actually agree with you on this one.

In any case, a very poignant argument. Although, personally, I like wikileaks. It has given us a look into something we might never have been privy to. Since whistle blowing is encouraged in private business (by government), in personal lives, I find it hypocritical government hasn't created their own version, just for themselves, to disseminate to the public. (You know, to be fair.)

I think you have a valid argument, (whether or not I agree with it completely) I will concede I have nothing further to poke and prod at.