Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States News

Julian Assange Charged in Superseding Indictment (justice.gov) 229

A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange's alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States. DOJ, in a press release: The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019. It does, however, broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged. According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks. Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a "famous teenage hacker in Australia" and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks. In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting "a small vulnerability" inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, and then asserted that "[t]his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking." In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an "Anonymous" and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Julian Assange Charged in Superseding Indictment

Comments Filter:
  • What obligation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @09:56AM (#60226422)
    does a non-US citizen have to safeguard US classified information?
    • About as much obligation that a Slashdotter has to RTFS.

      The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019. It does, however, broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged. According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks.

      That's a crime in the US regardless of your nationality. If the US is somehow able to take you into custody, this sort of crime will get you convicted.

      We decided long ago that even US citizens on US soil can legally publish stolen classified documents [wikipedia.org]. But actively being part of the conspiracy to steal the documents, that is a very different thing.

    • It's the recruiting and soliciting specific information that makes him prosecutable. If WikiLeaks had stuck with just passively receiving information that it would (arguably) be a Press within the meaning of the 1st Amendment. But recruiting people to hack on its behalf and asking specific people for specific information crosses over into espionage.

    • No, he has no obligation to safeguard U.S. classified information. But if he encourages U.S. citizens to steal/disclose classified information for him, he should fully expect the U.S. to try to prosecute him to the best of its ability. To believe the U.S. has no grounds for doing so gives a free pass to the likes of Nigeria 419 scammers, who are operating from outside the target victim's country but encourage them to wire money overseas.
    • Only in retrospect, and only once in US federal custody.

    • He does not have to safeguard US classified info *if given to him freely*. The thing is , he is accused of *inducing* the theft of the data, which make him indictable.
  • This is insanely fucked up, and every disgusting abomination of a creature that cheers for this, must be, in the friendliest manner, ejected off this planet to their rotten smelly planet of unhuman psychopath degenerates.

  • Why is the NSA trying to claim they have a case against Assange through the use of someone like Sabu (and who not mention him by name), when they already arrested him for being a fraud?

    You'd think if the government was dealing with such criminal elements they could get their investigators (and CI's) to avoid criminal acts.

  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @10:50AM (#60226624)

    Manning is an actual criminal. Not only a US citizen, but enlisted in the US Armed Forces, and held a top-secret clearance. Manning completely betrayed the US, a bona-fide traitor.

    Assange, by contrast, is not a US citizen. All he did was publish leaked information. The most respected US media sources do that all the time. Assange has already been punished, with essentially 7 years of incarceration.

    • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday June 25, 2020 @12:15PM (#60227052) Journal

      Manning completely betrayed the US, a bona-fide traitor.

      As defined in the US constitution, treason means "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". Manning was charged with "aiding the enemy", but was acquitted of that charge, meaning Manning is not, per US law, a traitor.

    • His actions were traitorous, but I'm hesitant to call him a traitor.

      It's fairly obvious to me that he's some kind of mentally ill. Before anyone leaps on me, I have clarify that this has nothing to do with his transgender status. His work history showed serious problems, which included documented cases of him throwing furniture at his supervisors. The people responsible for the Manning dumpster fire are the ones who let him keep his TS clearance after is became dreadfully in-you-face obvious that he w
    • Assange has already been punished

      Self inflicting punishment is not a recognised form of punishment in the eyes of the law.

    • All he did was publish leaked information. The most respected US media sources do that all the time.

      Publishing leaked materials is both legal and protected, as it should be. Leaking information, however—whether you're conspiring, coercing, soliciting, or actively participating—is oftentimes illegal, regardless of whether you intend to publish it. The distinction is important, and he's being accused of the latter.

      When we taught whistleblowing in ethics, we always stressed that it should not be treated lightly, because whistleblowing oftentimes means throwing away both your career and freedom b

    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      I would disagree with regard to manning if there was any credible reason to believe he leaked the information in some effort to make the US Govt accountable to the US Citizens they are supposed to represent and answer to. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. I do believe Manning was mentally ill but I don't believe that exonerates him.

  • by jandoe ( 6400032 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @11:20AM (#60226762)

    that the rape accusation was only there to arrest him and start the extradition process? I remember people here claiming here that the accusations were actually valid. Looks like we can now all agree this people were wrong but did Sweden openly admin to being US lapdog or are they still pretending that's not the case?

    • I believe Women. But I believe MENDAX more.

    • You've come to this conclusion, based on what exactly?

      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        There never having been any sort of basis for the accusation other than a bribe and once brought in custody successfully the immediate political persecution alleged by Assange and crazy conspiracy theorists officially engaged?

    • that the rape accusation was only there to arrest him and start the extradition process?

      What makes you say that? The USA clearly was waiting for an arrest in any case to start an extradition process, and if anything it's success in the UK is a clear indication that Sweden and the rape allegation was completely irrelevant to this process. Incidentally it's far harder to get extradited from Sweden than the UK, and a known douche-bag (what you think of the case is quite irrelevant to this douche-bag's personality) standing trial for one crime does not magically absolve him from having committed a

      • that the rape accusation was only there to arrest him and start the extradition process?

        What makes you say that?

        He asks because he decided that was the story he wanted to read already, in the past, and now he's wondering if his hairbrained prognostications have come true yet, since he's was so obviously feeling righteous when he said it. And everybody knows when you really feel right, you're right.

        So now he's still asking. There is either evidence that his prognostication was righteous, or there is propaganda and lies. Nothing falls through the cracks, so there is no reason to introduce other possible explanations.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      Sweden I believe at some point actually dropped their request. The UK was pedantically holding him on the basis he "jumped bail" by seeking asylum in the embassy. Punishing someone for seeking asylum from political persecution in an allies sovereign embassy seems like it should be some kind of treaty violation but apparently it isn't.

  • by Press2ToContinue ( 2424598 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @12:49PM (#60227240)

    Given the recent spate of revelations regarding the corruption of the US DOJ and the FBI regarding falsifications, coersion, and dirty trials (Russian collusion, Flynn, Stone,) one has to wonder about the veracity of claims against Assange.

  • by LinuxLuver ( 775817 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @07:11PM (#60232642)
    Assange is an Australian living in London. US law *should* be completely irrelevant. He broke no law in the US. Just one more way UK Conservatives fail.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...