US Investigators Probing Years of WikiLeaks Activities, Report Says (reuters.com) 64
WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange are the subject of a long-running criminal investigation in the U.S., Reuters reported on Friday, citing sources familiar with the matter. Investigators have dug into the website's activities going back years, people who have been in contact with witnesses in the case say. From the report: American investigators are gathering information and pursuing witnesses involved in both recent WikiLeaks disclosures and the website's large-scale postings of U.S. military and diplomatic messages over several years from 2010. Officially, U.S. authorities have issued no public comments about the status of Wikileaks-related investigations. But a document which U.S. authorities said was mistakenly filed in open court in an unrelated case last November alluded to a sealed U.S. criminal complaint against Assange, though the document does not provide specifics regarding which laws U.S. prosecutors believe Assange violated.
Classified Information (Score:1)
Isn't it the job of the US Government to protect information it deems classified?
What crime did Julian Assange commit by publishing this information that cleared persons passed onto his organization?
Does Julian Assange, an Australian Citizen, have some obligation to protect US classified information?
I don't think he does, but I'd welcome an explanation or rebuttal.
Re: Classified Information (Score:3, Insightful)
NYT and Washington Post are the only official leaking channels recognized and used by the FBI.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot CNN
Re:Classified Information (Score:5, Insightful)
You will be punished for embarrassing powerful people. The crime will be discovered [amzn.to] to fit the punishment.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
or you will be punished for leaking the biggest secret of the U.S.: that the U.S. is the biggest hypocrite.
Re: Classified Information (Score:1)
It's very simple. It is better to have values and fail to live up to them than to embrace evil whole heartedly.
China has chosen the latter.
Re: (Score:1)
Got it, pretending to have values is better than not pretending.
Re: (Score:2)
wait, wait, wait, you've got to tell us what backwater you're from where you didn't know that the US has been accused of hypocrisy.
Oh, nevermind, it's in your username.
Re:Classified Information (Score:4, Informative)
Only government officials, and those they contract with, are bound to keep it secret, and that's akin to a company requiring you to keep trade secrets.
A news organization is free to publish classified material if they are given it, so long as they are not complicit in getting it, say, by paying for it to be taken, or helping to take it.
Ergo either they suspect he paid for it, or are harrassing him, knowing he cannot be found guilty of anything. This part makes no difference where he is or his citizenship. If he paid for it, he's acting as a spy or foreign agent, and can be gone after. If not, he's as protected as any American journalist.
Re: (Score:2)
Ergo either they suspect he paid for it, or are harrassing him, knowing he cannot be found guilty of anything.
I think they are aiming to make him guilty.
Like, "Un-American Activities", back in the McCarthy days.
Re: (Score:2)
You leave out possibilities like, maybe he did more than pay for it, maybe he actively coached people through the exfiltration process.
That seems to be the direction indicated by what has leaked so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Classified Information (Score:5, Insightful)
He violated the "The Country With the Biggest Military Gets To Make the Laws For Everyone Else" Act of Forever.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. I want to live in a world where political parties can not hide behind Trade Secret protections. When Debbie had to resign, it was a victory for truth.
Re: (Score:1)
They are not classified for non US citizens
Re: (Score:2)
The rebuttal is that you obviously don't know if that is what they're investigating, or if they're investigating something else, like involvement in the act of leaking itself, rather than just the act of publishing.
The publishing is obviously legal. When he first hid in the embassy, all that was publicly known about was publishing, which is obviously legal under US law. And yet, he was worried about something more. And now he's being investigated for something more. We don't know what yet, because the proce
Re: (Score:1)
The only criminal charge the US could possibly levy against Wikileaks or foreign individuals is receiving stolen goods. And that charge is iffy at best. This most recent announcement of US government investigations comes up every time Assange thinks about leaving the embassy in London. That moron is still trying to put himself up a martyr to cover up his over the top narcissistic behavior.
And has Wikileaks ever provided the one thing it was founded on? Wikileaks was supposed to be a mechanism where individu
Mike Russia Today? (Score:2, Insightful)
Trying to figure out if you are a Russian advocating for your country (fair enough...) or an American advocating for the most infamous traitor in recent US military history.
Military academies will spend the next 50 years training cadets how not to betray their country like Mike Flynn.
Re: (Score:2)
When they have RT in their username, I just figure they're Russian.
Re: (Score:1)
You need to get your news from somewhere other than /pol/ or infowars or Qtard videos.
Mostly for your own sake.
No worries (Score:3)
It's all about a vague sexual assault charge or jumping bail, or some shit. The UK and Sweden would NEVER engage in legal system theater just as cover for extraditing him to the U.S. Nope, this is all about some charge in Sweden that got dropped and Britian's endless noble quest for justice. No extradition worries for that bloke.
Laws (Score:1)
Haven't you heard? US law is applicable to everyone else in the entire world, regardless of where they were born. However, the US reserves the right to ignore any laws it finds inconvenient.
Move along, citizen!
Re: (Score:2)
Golly, but it almost seems like if something was leaked from a place, part of the activity happened in that place. So laws of that place might actually apply.
Re: (Score:1)
Right. So if some dude leaked information from the People's Liberation Army, you want him railroaded back to China.
You're quite the little fucking martinet, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Derp derp derp.
Shorter you: "I can't read! Everybody must be a moronic stereotype!"
Learn how to read, then you'll be capable of being in discussions about policy.
Whistleblower hall of fame (Score:3)
There are NO VIABLE Charges against Assange. (Score:2)
Its all been nothing more than a series of bluffs to cause constraint and spying on him. The indications of bluffing is all over the place, never a yeah or nay on anything. The UK police had him in custody and did not extradite him. Julian offered to turn himself over for Mannings release but Obam nullified that offer right before granting Manning release. Sweden never had charges against Assange but refused to talk to him remotely or directly in the UK. Australia stays neutral. Even the incident of the UK
Re: (Score:2)
Given all the years this matter has been going on are we to believe they are still probing the leaks? Or maybe they are trying to figure out how to correctly redact information for public release? The real Life MAD Mag Spy vs Spy blunders .....They don't need wikileaks to blunder themselves i.e. https://list25.com/25-cia-blun... [list25.com]