An Anonymous US Law Enforcement Officer Claims US Wouldn't Arrest Julian Assange 399
McGruber writes "The Washington Post reports that 'Federal prosecutors have not filed a sealed indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, despite persistent rumors that a nearly three-year grand jury investigation into him and his organization had secretly led to charges, according to senior law enforcement sources. ... "Nothing has occurred so far," said one law enforcement official with knowledge of the case. "If Assange came to the U.S. today, he would not be arrested. But I can't predict what's going to happen. He might be in six months." The law enforcement official providing this assurance chose to remain anonymous.'"
Sure... (Score:5, Funny)
We believe you.
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So an AC said he will not be arrested. Well that's enough for me.... wait, Julian, what if it's a trap?
It's not. Come on down!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested to know the names of these numerous US citizens whom the government executed without a fair trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anwar al-Awlaki - intentionally executed without trial.
Samir Khan - unintentionally executed as part of the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Jude Kenan Mohammad - intentionally executed. Had previously been convicted of terrorism conspiracy, but not to a sufficient degree to actually be imprisoned.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - 16 year old with no personal involvement in terrorism, but who had a father (Anwar al-Awlaki) who was involved. Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary, stated that he "should have had a more responsible father." Unclear at what level the execution was a mistake.
Three of the four are arguably "bad guys" - but they should still have gotten a proper trial, so we could determine if they are. The last one doesn't even seem to be a bad guy, just somebody that happened to be born to an unfortunate father.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say unjustified. He said without a fair trial.
For example, Osama bin Laden was executed (or at any rate killed) without a fair trial. Would you say that was unjustified?
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Would you say that was unjustified?"
Yes, because that made it murder. If they were not ready to give him a trial they should not have gone after him. You accept that he is the evil nemesis only because the people that made billions from a war, told you he was. Without that fair trial, he was an innocent man and shooting him was murder. He was unarmed when they entered his bedroom, there was no need or reason to shoot him. They should have given him a fair trial so that the world could see the man to be who they claim he was. Now it all looks like a lie.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone knows he deserved to die is the anti-judicial refrain. I personally am happy he is dead, but there was no justice involved. The government killing people and imprisoning people without a fair and open trial is fucking immoral, no matter what anyone says.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
"but there was no justice involved"
As a US veteran I actually got teary eyed when I saw the newspaper headlines after Osama was killed with the President saying that "Justice has been served". The President of the United States, calling that justice. The country we have now and the one I enlisted to defend are not the same country.
The older I get, the harder I find it to be truly patriotic.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are taught the pledge of allegiance in class for just this reason.
I don't want America to lose a war to a foreign invasion, but that doesn't mean that I should go die for her in a pointless war.
WWII is the last war that really mattered. The rest were about money, politics, oil, etc.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm English, by the way.
Most people are trained to be "patriotic" to whatever country they live in from a young age.
We are taught the pledge of allegiance in class for just this reason.
No... No, we are not. No one is trained to be patriotic in England. Seriously. There is no patriotism at all in schools, no proudness of what the UK has achieved. This is a US phenomenon.
I personally love my country... but that has nothing to do with education, and the bits I love are probably the bits someone else who loves the UK hates. That's part of what I love about my country.
Most people learn about how important the UK is now (7th biggest economy in the world) and was (largest empire of all time) after they have left school.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Claims_Act [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosa_v._Alvarez-Machain [wikipedia.org]
In essence, US claims that one way or the other, USA has jurisdiction over every living person on earth. You might be a British citizen, who has never been to USA and has not broken any of the British laws, but you can be prosecuted regardless, if you knowingly or unknowingly broke US laws, without ever setting foot in USA.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't actually arrest him since he is an Australian citizen who leaked information from outside of the USA. He is not subject to the laws of the USA. If the US sends people after him outside of the USA, Assange should kill them because once they step foot outside of their borders, they have no authority any more.
He is subject to the laws of the USA with respect to any activity he did in the USA. Citizenship doesn't have anything to do with it. I think federal prosecutor would likely argue that his persuasion of Chelsea (Bradley) Manning to violate US law was in violation of US law and that he could be prosecuted for it. But they would have to convince a jury and a judge that this was the case.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you heard of a place called Guantanamo that is filled with people that are not US citizens, have never been to the US or committed crimes in the US and most were just defending their country against an invasion, as I hope you would if your country was invaded.
Re: (Score:3)
Its A Trap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a tactic to let the Justice Department be able to say, "He is not facing arrest" without lying.
Plus they problaby have to soften up the journalist community, to get them OK with the idea that Assange is a spy and not a publisher/journalist.
Re:Its A Trap! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Its A Trap! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are apparently a fortunate person. I know people over the age of 20 who would believe this nonsense. They'll believe anything their favorite talking head says to believe.
You think? (Score:2)
Sounds like a tactic to let the Justice Department be able to say, "He is not facing arrest" without lying.
Plus they problaby have to soften up the journalist community, to get them OK with the idea that Assange is a spy and not a publisher/journalist.
I bet you it'd take about 2 hours or less for them to serve up a warrant... in face, id wager there's one prepared, unsigned, just waiting for the chance for a 'friendly' judge to sign if the situation calls for it
Re:Its A Trap! (Score:5, Insightful)
The quoted article doesn't SAY that, not anywhere. It's called "making shit up" otherwise known as writing Slashdot headlines, and there is no such implication in US law. Normally, an arrest happens on suspicion and an indictment follows. Sometimes, they do it the other way around but it's never the case that the police need an indictment to arrest you.
I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:5, Insightful)
They might not arrest him. They might just shoot him.
Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:5, Insightful)
Or detain him indefinitely. Many of the people in Gitmo haven't actually been "arrested" or charged with anything.
Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to look at the authorizations for force in Afghanistan & Iraq... then look up what generally constitutes an 'declaration of war', as last I checked... neither US law or the Constitution explicitly defines in what form a 'declaration of war' must take... or even if those words must be used.
Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:4, Insightful)
Except we have not declared war.
Technically, we were never at war with any of the countries those people being detained are from. unless you think declaring war on abstract ideas counts.
Re: (Score:3)
The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress is pretty clear.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. [gpo.gov]
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:4, Interesting)
Where then is the authoritative description of what a declaration of war is, in what form it must take, and the exact language required?
I'll save you some time... there is no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Countries go to war with other countries. There is a large and ancient body of law governing the behavior of countries at war with each other. Not that those laws have not been violated many times, but they do exist.
The USA can never go to war against Al Qaida, since that is not a country nor even an organization. It is at most a band of nihilistic psychopaths with severe, shared delusions about what reality is really like, and a social structure that reinforces their delusional state.
The best way
Re: (Score:3)
No... they are being held as unlawful enemy combatants... there is a difference. Being a POW comes with certain rights under the Geneva Conventions, not so for those down in Gitmo.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has a court system and its still working.... and US law and international treaty obligations are clear, get people before a real court.
Re: (Score:2)
End of a conflict against a tactic.... be a long wait for that one..
The Authorization for Use of Military Force is pretty clear about who the US is at war with. The only puzzling thing is why people keep getting hung up on symbolic language as if it is really confusing. Nobody seems to be confused about who the war was against during the "war against fascism" between 1939-1945, but the "war against terror" from 2001-2013 seems to "baffle" people.
The US has a court system and its still working.... and US law and international treaty obligations are clear, get people before a real court.
Those treaties allow al Qaida members to be held as enemy combatants and tried before military commissions if applicable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We didn't have a war on fascism dumbass. We had a war against Japan, and added Germany and Italy to the list shortly afterwards.
Japan was an Imperial Monarchy, and had nothing to do with fascism. Meanwhile Spain's Fascist General Franco was never a target of US military action.
Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not. War is a state that exists between two sovereign nations or putative nations. It is not a state that exists between a nation and criminal gang.
We were not at war with an abstract concept like "fascism" during WWII, we were at war with Germany, Japan, and Italy; when the governments of those nations signed surrender papers the state of war ended.
Conveniently, there is no government to surrender in the "war" (so-called) on terror. We get to always be at "war" with terror.
Not quite. Accused members of the criminal organization Al Qaida are entitled to the same civilian trials as any other criminal defendants, unless they were captured on the battlefield while engaging in combat. In that case they are combatants and are either prisoners of war or unlawful combatants; they are entitled to the presumption of POW status until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". But the U.S. doesn't get to say "we know, we just *know* you're an Al Qaida member!"
Re: (Score:2)
Is the person a goat herd? Picked up for a 'cash' or just making up the 'quota' by another friendly intelligence 'service'.
Picked up for a 'cash' over some local dispute.
Was the person tortured? What does their defence team have to present?
Good lawyers can present their facts and most courts can handled most criminal and legal situations....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
but a modern and just socienty doesn't do things the gitmo way.
And what is that? Are you saying modern and just societies don't take prisoners of war?
Re: (Score:3)
They weren't all prisoners of war, but prisoners of circumstance. They were not all fighting. Due to the American offer of "money for terrorists", many poor people simply pointed fingers at enemies or competition or strangers or whoever wandered by, said "terrorist!" and got paid. That's not how prisoners of war are discovered. Prisoners of war are discovered on the battlefield, first hand, by the country which takes them prisoner.
But tell yourself whatever you want to hear as if the US has any sort of
Re: (Score:2)
This was done for everybody in Gitmo, they released a few dozen prisoners during the process
What about the mostly Yemeni prisoners who were tried, declared not guilty, and sent right back to their cells? Those guys actually constitute the majority of people in Gitmo right now.
Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no, NO! The prisoners in Guantanamo have been denied status as POW's. That special legal fallacy of "enemy combatant" was created specifically to deny those prisoners the legal benefits of either POW's or criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
To qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions you have to wage war lawfully, it is part of the enforcement mechanism of the treaty. Al Qaida doesn't do so. They are unlawful combatants. They could still be charged with war crimes. And no, it isn't a legal fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
There are established protocols and precedent for war crimes trials. It wasn't necessary to create a whole new class of prisoners, or to create a special holding area in Guantanamo. If they were to be tried for war crimes, they could and should have been brought to the United States, perhaps to Fort Hood, and processed. The Bush administration worked overtime to create a whole new class of persons so that both POW and criminal rights could be avoided.
Re: (Score:3)
There are also established protocols for holding POWs. Both confinement and adjudication of any war crimes charges can and are being handled at Guantanamo Bay, a US Navy base. There is no reason to bring them into the continental US. There is no need to bring them to an Army installation. There is no reason that courts martial or military commissions can't be held at Guantanamo which has also previously been used for confinement in other contingencies. There is little new in this, just unfamiliarity fo
Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, they are a special made up category or person that has no rights at all. I wander what other excituing new categories we'll come up with.
Back in the world ruled by law, you are either a POW and entitled to all of the rights under the Geneva Convention OR you are a civilian entitled to all of the rights of a civilian prisoner, in this case, Constitutional rights.
Asked if that binary bit is a 1 or a 0, you are claiming it's fish.
Re: (Score:3)
The law doesn't allow for more than the two states. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit POW and a little bit civilian. Just like you can't legally be sorta-kinda under arrest. You are either under arrest or you are free to leave.
If you haven't lawfully waged war, then you are a civilian. Our Constitution is quite clear about how we must treat civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
They might not arrest him. They might just shoot him.
Since when is wishful thinking +Insightful?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is such a stupid comment like the parent modded "insightful"? Paranoid, yes. Insightful, no.
Perhaps because there is no "1+ paranoid" and "1+ informative" is an even poorer choice?
And Julian does need to keep in mind that just because he might truly be paranoid, that doesn't mean the bastards are not out to get him.
Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't believe a damn thing anyone in law enforcement says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE [youtube.com]
Never could, no point in starting any time soon.
Makes good family viewing. Especially your kids.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so.
People being ignorant of history, that is not a new phenomenon.
The policing professions have always been attractive and accessible to the worst kinds of human beings. Asshole cops have always existed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so.
People being ignorant of history, that is not a new phenomenon.
The policing professions have always been attractive and accessible to the worst kinds of human beings. Asshole cops have always existed.
We went from having some asshole cops and mostly good meaning cops to a situation today where most cops are bullies or worse and the few good apples are drowned in the institutional omerta' that reigns in police departments across the country. So hell fucking no, the situation today is nothing like it was 30, 40 or even 50 years ago.
The Police abdicated their role of "peace officers" the moment they went full paramilitary on us. Today they are just as bad as the real criminals. I wouldn't talk to a police o
Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
My mind goes farther and farther back in time.
When and where are you talking about? They were lying shit in the 70s and I presume the 60s from stories I hear. Beyond that the history books aren't kind either. I guess television always showed fictitious nice cops. I suppose the highway patrolmen touring the elementary school safety circuit are probably nice guys, but, those are the ones they send on tour. I'm fairly loaded with psych case histories and results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory battery of tests of cops over the last 30 years or so in my area. They're fairly simple, power hungry and can have some pretty major deviations and will still be hired. That's the profile you get, here and elsewhere. As long as you're no brainiac, have no record and can read and write,you can be a real nut job and still be a cop fresh out of training and believe me, the majority do. The worst of them trickle down to the podunk towns after and if they get fired from urban areas.
Here in my area of the state, there are 3 separate cases of incarcerating officers sexually assaulting suspects this year alone. There is also a regional rash THIS YEAR of 6 cases of suspects fleeing, jumping in ponds and drowning. Not years previous, just this year.This is a two county area I'm speaking of.
We have two officers up for murder and one, a police trainer, convicted of murdering his wife and committing arson to cover it up. There aren't even a million people here. This is only the headline stuff too. Soooo much more.
It ain't 9-11 anymore, the polish wore off and all we have left is punks with badges all the way up to Federal levels.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you claiming that you have a statistically valid representative sample that you are generalizing from to paint all law enforcement officers across the country as bad? Or are you grinding an axe based on a small sample of aberrant cases and maybe a few unhappy experiences?
Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, the ponds.
There was a case in Oklahoma several years back. A young black man eluded police until he ran into a pond and drowned. The autopsy stated quite clearly that he drowned to death. Oddly, that drowned young man had some bullet holes in his back. I didn't view the body, so I can't swear that there were holes in his back - but I did talk to a member of his family who did view the body before it was dressed for the funeral.
We screwed up badly when fleeing and evading the police was made into a felony. Quite naturally, a police officer is authorized to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony. If you've done nothing else wrong, just turning a corner to avoid being seen by a cop is reason to be shot to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Also (Score:5, Funny)
The official went on to say that he totally heard that the Justice department has a big basket of puppies waiting in the office to give to Julian [Assange] if he just drops by by next week.
No need (Score:5, Funny)
You typically don't arrest people after they jump off the curb in front of a bus while being mauled by a pack of attack dogs with polonium teeth. Especially if they previously committed suicide using the safe two-bullet-in-the-head technique and padlocked themselves in a gym bag.
It's just poor taste
Re: (Score:2)
and padlocked themselves in a gym bag.
In case anyone thinks bob_super is making that up: "The death of MI6 spy Gareth Williams, whose body was found in a padlocked sports bag, was probably an accident, police have said." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24927078 [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
To be perfectly honest - I haven't made my mind up on that one. Williams supposedly had this thing about bondage and discipline. Did they make that history up, or was he into some kinky weird shit? Maybe a boyfriend/girlfriend was supposed to beat on him before releasing him - and they just walked out. I just don't know what to think about him.
Re:No need (Score:5, Informative)
Why would he be arrested? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would he be arrested? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He does not have to take up arms, look at what they want to charge Snowden with and what they did charge Manning with
That would be espionage, which was in my second line. If Assage were to come to the US, and was arrested, he would almost certainly be processed through the civilian courts.
Manning was subject the US Uniform Code of Military Justice which allows for a charge of aiding the enemy - Article 104. He was acquitted on that charge.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Assange will get worse than Manning in the way of sentencing, and the precedent is already set for the charges.
False. Long standing precedent says that Assange is in the clear, provided that he didn't actively encourage Manning to break the law. Assange had no duty to maintain the confidentiality of classified information, he's essentially in the same legal position as the New York Times when it publishes classified information revealed to it by sources. This is the legal precedent going back at least as far as the Pentagon Papers, and to the best of my knowledge we've never seen a reporter charged (much less con
Troll mod? For factual information? (Score:2)
Way to go, anonymous coward with mod points.
New York Times Co. v. United States [wikipedia.org]
That's the authoritative case and it still stands today. Look it up before acting in such haste with the downmod.
Re:Why would he be arrested? (Score:4, Informative)
Ever hear of this guy [wikipedia.org] who spent years in jail being tortured before facing charges? He is even a U.S. citizen -- Julian Assange is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People get arrested in both free and repressive countries. The difference is the reason, and the likely outcome. In the Soviet Union you could be arrested for making a joke about the national political leadership and go to the Gulag for 10 years. In the US? Not so much. I doubt you have a real handle on repression in communist countries.
The Soviet Story trailer [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In the Soviet Union you could be arrested for making a joke about the national political leadership and go to the Gulag for 10 years. In the US? Not so much.
That's only a matter of time. It's not if this will happen in the US, it's when this will happen.
he wouldnt be arrested today.. (Score:2)
he'd be arrested.. tomorrow. :-p
As A Matter of Fact... (Score:5, Funny)
... I heard that Julian Assange has accepted an invitation to speak publicly in New York City's, Central Park on November 30, 2013 at 6:00 PM. I also heard that large numbers of people were going to show up dressed as Julian Assange. Is there any truth to that rumor?
Lack of indictment diplomatic bargaining chip? (Score:2)
I wonder if the lack of an indictment or any sworn statement that he will be arrested is some kind of bargaining status diplomatically. Maybe not a very good one, since it doesn't seem likely that the US would NOT try to persecute, I mean, prosecute him if they could.
But perhaps by not indicting him or "officially" promising to arrest him, Ecuador will somehow feel pressure to boot him out of their embassy or at least not feel as interested in letting him stay.
Re: (Score:3)
A CIA/NGO backed colour revolution in Ecuador would be useful.
As for the trial - if its open the media gets to report. The US is sure of the optics of a show trial.
A closed trial with cleared lawyers talking in a sealed court room would be bad optics for a person not from the USA without a US security clearance.
I would say a change of EU and South American politics would be the long term US option.
Reduce the embassy cov
And if you believe this... (Score:2)
I have some beach front property in West Virgina to sell you. Ocean front view and moonshine...
There may not be an formal charge to arrest him right *now* but that could change in a blink of an eye should they find him strolling the streets here in the US of A. But at this point, who cares? He's sitting in some embassy on foreign soil and apart from an act of war there is nothing the USA can do but sit and wait. At least legally that's all they can do. Of course, if he was anyplace but the middle of Lond
Re: (Score:2)
This "unidentified" law enforcement official is either uninformed, stupid, deluded or all three.
What about plain old-fashioned lying?
The European Official is Clearly Missing Something (Score:2)
Assange is charged with rape in Sweden. I know his supporters love to claim that the charges are fake, but it's not like the Swedish Justice system is widely considered to be corrupt. Hell, they have statements from Swedish women saying he did it. I could believe the CIA faked a video of Assange. But faking people is just not technically possible. Believing the CIA found two (not one, but two) women Assange'd take to his bed, and that both would agree to charge him with rape afterwards, and that neither one
Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (Score:4, Informative)
but it's not like the Swedish Justice system is widely considered to be corrupt. Hell, they have statements from Swedish women saying he did it
I'm not an Assange supporter, but:
The ladies both consented to engage in adult activities. They decided afterwards that Assange allegedly did not agree to their terms and conditions, so they filed charges. It's kind of like a dad borrowing his car to his son saying "you can't go faster than 65mph" and then filing theft charges if he finds out that the kid drove 80mph on the freeway. The Swedish systems allows for this, so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
And one of the girls had connections with the CIA anyway. Also, Assange is not actually charged with anything. They just want to "question" him but refuse to question him in London but wanted to take him back to Sweden. Also, the Swedish prosecutors didn't go after him, and later did go after him, with the suggestion that they changed their mind after a word in their ears from the U.S. He has good reason to be paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, one of the ladies had consensual sex while insisting that Assange use a condom, and then woke up later that night to find Assange having sex with her without a condom. She had not consented to unprotected sex, which means it was unconsensual (i.e. rape). That is NOT "deciding afterwards that Assange allegedly did not agree to their terms and conditions".
The Swedish systems allows for this, so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.
Why does that matter? He broke Swedish law while in Sweden. Who gives a shit what the US laws on the topic say?
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, one of the ladies had consensual sex while insisting that Assange use a condom, and then woke up later that night to find Assange having sex with her without a condom.
And I heard it that he had consensual sex without a condom on assurances that he was monogamous, and when it was discovered he wasn't, the consent was retroactively withdrawn. If lying to gain consent is rape, I think 90% or more of the population has committed rape (yes baby, I love you).
Re: (Score:2)
He is "alleged" to have done this. Nothing has been proven. He is wanted for interviewing. Given that they have pursued this unlike any similar cases, this one is being treated as special. That is enough to tell you that it is not a normal case. What he has been "alleged" to do would have millions upon millions of Americans (and swedes) in jail. You break the law every day, we all do. This gives them the choice to prosecute you... or not.
What he did was a dick thing but they have come down on him with a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rape by deception is still rape.
But who am I kidding? This is the internet, a cesspool of misogynistic assholes. I bet you think that having sex with someone blackout drunk isn't rape either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.
And your point would be... what?
Re: (Score:2)
And your point would be... what?
My point is that, contrary to popular belief, US laws do not apply everywhere in the world. So whatever the law defines as rape in your flyover state, can have a whole different meaning in another country.
Let me give another example: most states consider consensual intercourse between an adult and a sixteen year old "statutory rape". In many countries around the world, it is legal or just a "lower" criminal offense which usually does not carry a long prison sentence.
Morals differ everywhere and are codi
In the unlikely event (Score:2)
In the unlikely event that Mr Assange gets himself out of the Ecuadoran embassy and to the United States without being arrested by UK police, and the US border authorities did not immediately detain him, and US did not indict him on some charge of their own, then he would still be arrested shortly afterward. The Swedish authorities would have started extradition proceedings with the US the moment they got wind of Assange leaving the UK.
Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to (Score:2, Insightful)
'Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to the Fly.
Land of the Free (Score:2)
The Land of the Free does not arrest people. It invites them to a holiday island to play a game of heretics and inquisitors.
Re: (Score:3)
so, they won't arrest him, but they might put him on a big scale and weigh him against a rather large duck.
I see.
Doesn't cover US officials refusing to comment (Score:2)
Obama simply refuses to admit on the record Assange or Snowden has been arrested. Refuse to say anything to the press but "No comment" about it.
Like the US Gov't has handled questions about Israel's nuclear weapon arsenal for 4 decades.
Anonymous Source Says Turn Yourselves In (Score:3)
Breaking news, here on /.
Federal officials have anonymously granted immunity to all who confess here (No Anonymous Cowards!) to drunken driving, porn viewing, shoplifting, debauchery, and hacking.
Dudes, for real, turn yourselves in. Totally cool. Totally. Listen... C'mon. It's cool.
OK. I'll bite (Score:2)
Why would he be arrested? He did something that the U.S. government really wished he hadn't done but he is not a U.S. citizen. He was under no legal obligation to not publish any of the documents Bradley Manning passed to him (or anything else). The Brits have different secrecy laws and THEY can arrest him for publishing anything that they regard as secret (Official Secrets Act or something like that) or on the Sweedish rape charge. The U.S. is under no obligation to arrest him in that matter although w
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Come on home Julian..... you can trust us.....
He's not from the US, dipshit.
I rather believe in Santa Claus (Score:3, Funny)
If I were forced to choose either to believe in Santa Claus or this "anonymous" officer of justice of the United States of America, I rather believe in that fat guy in red clothing - and his leading reindeer with a bright shining nose
Re: (Score:3)
It is highly reasonably this is the truth. What he said was that there are no indictments yet and no warrants from the process. This is entirely likely to be the case specifically to avoid strengthening any amnesty claims and eventually allow some third party deportation eventually. Charges, if any, would likely wait until there is a chance of actually getting him. Remember, the officer only said as of now and specifically left the future open citing an unfinished grand jury process.
Re:I rather believe in Santa Claus (Score:5, Funny)
Hey Julian, it's even been leaked by an anonymous source. You're into that kind of stuff, right?