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.'"
Re:Come on Home (Score:2, Informative)
Come on home Julian..... you can trust us.....
He's not from the US, dipshit.
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:Why would he be arrested? (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: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:Why would he be arrested? (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 convicted) for the publication of classified material.
The only thing that would get him into trouble would be if he actively encouraged Manning to break the law, in that instance he could be facing conspiracy charges. Did he do that? Nobody other than Manning knows for sure. I find it unlikely, since there are folks in Washington who really wanted to get Assange, and it would have made sense for Manning to trade his eventual testimony against him for a reduced sentence, if he had such testimony to offer.
Re:Its A Trap! (Score:4, Informative)
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:No need (Score:5, Informative)