Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraw asylum

ToBeFrank123

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not talking about blackmail. I'm saying that he could say that if he is extradited all information that he has been sitting on will be released given he is no longer there to see it's not.



He wouldn't need access to the Internet if something has already been put in place re: the release of documents should he be extradited.

Christ, have you never watched a Batman movie.

Sure it aint blackmail! :rolleyes:

the act of getting money from people or forcing them to do something by threatening to tell a secret of theirs or to harm them:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/blackmail

The more he threathens them to do or not do something, the worse it will get for him. And his chances of being let out on bail are zilch now. This guy will be spending a very long time in prison. He should have been nicer to the Ecuadorians!

Rjd2

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-julian-assange-arrest

The ACLU have a good article on how terrible this is and what it could mean in the future.

Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public's interest.

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

So you're not going to state that what you said about releasing damaging info "on the other side" is incorrect. Morals, who needs them right? Along as they get the guy you don't like nothing else really matters. How morally astute.

but he didnt did he? It was all about Hilarys emails.

mcmoustache

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-julian-assange-arrest

The ACLU have a good article on how terrible this is and what it could mean in the future.

It doesn't look like he is being charged with publishing the information. It's more like he is being charged for the same conspiracy as Manning.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested today in the United Kingdom pursuant to the U.S./UK Extradition Treaty, in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.

According to court documents unsealed today, the charge relates to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.

The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications. Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.

During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.” To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and Nancy McNamara, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, made the announcement after the charges were unsealed. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kellen S. Dwyer, Thomas W. Traxler and Gordon D. Kromberg, and Trial Attorneys Matthew R. Walczewski and Nicholas O. Hunter of the Justice Department’s National Security Division are prosecuting the case.

The extradition will be handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs.

A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:18-cr-111.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but he didnt did he? It was all about Hilarys emails.

Do you have problems comprehending things?

In 2016, yes. You stated they only release information damaging to one side, which in incorrect.

And especially people who only release information that is damaging to one side.

Likewise I'd imagine if they released emails on the Trump campaign only you'd be singing his praises and defending him now. It's horribly transparent that for you it's a hyper partisan stance solely because it was Clinton's emails that were dumped. Would Snowden still be a "weasel" in your eyes if he did what he did during the Trump administration? Have at it, I'm out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

The Iraq War documents leak is the disclosure to WikiLeaks of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 and published on the Internet on 22 October 2010. The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths. The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

Do you have problems comprehending things?

In 2016, yes. You stated they only release information damaging to one side, which in incorrect.



Likewise I'd imagine if they released emails on the Trump campaign only you'd be singing his praises and defending him now. It's horribly transparent that for you it's a hyper partisan stance solely because it was Clinton's emails that were dumped. Would Snowden still be a "weasel" in your eyes if he did what he did during the Trump administration? Have at it, I'm out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

The Iraq War documents leak is the disclosure to WikiLeaks of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 and published on the Internet on 22 October 2010. The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths. The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.

It was a completely partisan act to only embarrass one side. that is was partisan means. what happened previous to the election i really dont care about. Any respectability he did have disappeared when he decided to only act for one side.

archer22

There you go folks, don't ever expose the criminals who rule the west.
They always get their man.

Except Edward Snowden...but of course they will never give up on him either.

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

It doesn't look like he is being charged with publishing the information. It's more like he is being charged for the same conspiracy as Manning.

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1116336550873317377

That really reflects very poorly on ghouls like Bolton and Pompeo, but alas to be expected. Manning is someone who I feel more pity for like most, but whats coming to Assenge is pretty ****ing grim.

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It was a completely partisan act to only embarrass one side. that is was partisan means. what happened previous to the election i really dont care about.

People need to send them information before they can publish it. Were they given a treasure trove with thousands of Trump campaign emails or something? They dumped the emails online into a database with no additions, unlike the mainstream media who put their on spin everything. Wikileaks/Assange obviously don't like Clinton, each "media outlet" has their own bias, just like how they didn't like Bush.

Bold bit, ignorance is bliss I suppose.

seamus

archer22 wrote: »

There you go folks, don't ever expose the criminals who rule the west.
They always get their man.

He hasn't been extradited yet.

Especially given the EU's position on the US justice system, this saga has a long, long, way to go yet. Even if Sweden (somehow) get the go-ahead to send him to the US, they require the assent of the UK government (under EU rules).

Although I have little pity for Assange and his self-imposed exile because he turned out to the exact type of scumbag he was claiming to expose, I cannot support any U.S. overreach on charges; that is, a request to extradite a non-US citizen on offences against the US government.

Any request to extradite Assange for wikileaks is no more legitimate than a U.S. court bringing charges against Saddam Hussein.

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

People need to send them information before they can publish it. Were they given a treasure trove with thousands of Trump campaign emails or something? They dumped the emails online into a database with no additions, unlike the mainstream media who put their on spin everything. Wikileaks obviously don't like Clinton, each "media outlet" has their own bias.

Bold bit, ignorance is bliss I suppose.

well i suppose you will only ever have information on one side when you are employed by the other side. Clintons emails were hacked by Putin and passed on to wikileaks. Assange was happy to act as a putin shill. No wonder his mate snowden was granted asylum. As soon as putin is bored of him snowden will be out on his ear and face the same consequences as assange.

James Brown

I think he was heavily biased against Clinton. Considering the kind of person Trump is, it's amazing there has been little wikileaks on him and his dealings. TBF, Trump might go easier on him than Obama would have, in that Trump might put a word in, as is his want.

Looking like a Bond villain doesn't help either.

Fr_Dougal

mcmoustache wrote: »

Are you saying that the UK never extradites to the US? Because I don't think that's true.

If you mean that the UK won't extradite him to the US for charges that could incur the death penalty, then that's something different. We'll know soon enough what he's charged with and whether extradition to the US can be ruled out.

No, if you read my post again you’ll see exactly what I meant. Word for word.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

He hasn't been extradited yet.

Especially given the EU's position on the US justice system, this sage has a long, long, way to go yet.

Although I have little pity for Assange and his self-imposed exile because he turned out to the exact type of scumbag he was claiming to expose, I cannot support any U.S. overreach on charges; that is, a request to extradite a non-US citizen on offences against the US government.

Any request to extradite Assange for wikileaks is no more legitimate than a U.S. court bringing charges against Saddam Hussein.

He is charged with helping manning break into a us government computer. I'm not seeing the overreach.

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well i suppose you will only ever have information on one side when you are employed by the other side. Clintons emails were hacked by Putin and passed on to wikileaks. Assange was happy to act as a putin shill. No wonder his mate snowden was granted asylum. As soon as putin is bored of him snowden will be out on his ear and face the same consequences as assange.

So what you're saying is if a paper, let's say the NYT's, was given damaging but non confidential info on the Trump administration by an unknown source, or even a hostile source, they wouldn't publish it?

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

So what you're saying is if a paper, let's say the NYT's, was given damaging but non confidential info on the Trump administration by an unknown source, or even a hostile source, they wouldn't publish it?

He didnt just happen to be given the information.

Hotblack Desiato

Woke Hogan wrote: »

The original rape charges were clearly trumped up

The truth is you have no clue whether they were or not, but taking a definite position about something you can't know just makes you look silly (same as the 'any rape allegation must be believed' crowd.)

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He is charged with helping manning break into a us government computer. I'm not seeing the overreach.

An offence against the U.S. government committed extrajudicially.

The US believing they have the right to charge people for crimes committed outside of their jurisidiction, is the overreach.

What's more, it falls into the category of political (potentially military) offences. Which are generally by convention not covered by extradition. Otherwise your spies would be fvcked.

The US will have to present some pretty compelling evidence of this "assistance" tbh. Unless Assange himself logged into the machine interactively, it seems unlikely that they have enough to go on.

peddlelies

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think he was heavily biased against Clinton.

And NBC weren't heavily biased against Trump when they dumped that pussy tape they found in some archive that somehow ended up in the Washington post a few weeks before the election? What about other news outlets like MSNBC or CNN, are they somehow less worthy because they had an obvious bias for Clinton?

Bias has nothing to do with anything, there wasn't a single fake email in the thousands they dumped. That's not disputed.

Not that it matters, but nobody to the best of my recollection has said Wikileaks knew the emails came from the Russian government when they were publishing them. The intelligence agencies said Russia used a third party to pass them along.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

An offence against the U.S. government committed extrajudicially.

The US believing they have the right to charge people for crimes committed outside of their jurisidiction, is the overreach.

What's more, it falls into the category of political (potentially military) offences. Which are generally by convention not covered by extradition. Otherwise your spies would be fvcked.

I'm not seeing that at all. He committed a crime against the US government. You think they should just shake their head and go "oh well, nothing we can do".

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He didnt just happen to be given the information.

There's no proof of that, the intelligence agencies have said the opposite. Russia used a cut out to send the information to Wikleaks.

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

So because he was given information on one side and published it, the side you happen to align with, you're happy to see him locked up. You don't care about what they published in the past.

Your stance is totalitarian at best.

well he isn't being locked up for releasing hilarys emails so that is all a bit moot isn't it? My stance is quite simple. He helped a total ****tard like Trump get elected so i have zero respect for him. He started out with noble intentions but they all went out the window when he started acting as a putin shill. The US can go throw him into a dark hole.

AllForIt

On the point made about Assange 'taking sides' does this mean to suggest that if Assange were to infiltrate the US by use of a 'traitor' then in the interest of balance it was not legitimate to do so unless he did the same to every other country on the planet including Russia and China, the UK etc. Which would be some feat.

How did he get to Mannning btw? Or did Manning go to Assange in the first place?

peddlelies

AllForIt wrote: »

On the point made about Assange 'taking sides' does this mean to suggest that if Assange were to infiltrate the US by use of a 'traitor' then in the interest of balance it was not legitimate to do so unless he did the same to every other country on the planet including Russia and China, the UK etc. Which would be some feat.

How did he get to Mannning btw? Or did Manning go to Assange in the first place?

Manning contacted Wikileaks, then Manning's "friend" reported him(at the time) to the authorities.

c.p.w.g.w

seamus wrote: »

An offence against the U.S. government committed extrajudicially.

The US believing they have the right to charge people for crimes committed outside of their jurisidiction, is the overreach.

What's more, it falls into the category of political (potentially military) offences. Which are generally by convention not covered by extradition. Otherwise your spies would be fvcked.

The US will have to present some pretty compelling evidence of this "assistance" tbh. Unless Assange himself logged into the machine interactively, it seems unlikely that they have enough to go on.

I'm sure the US will ask mossad to illegally detain and transport him to the states. Israel has little to no respect for international law.. it's how they got Eichmann by breaking numerous laws locally(in Argentina) and internationally

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not seeing that at all. He committed a crime against the US government. You think they should just shake their head and go "oh well, nothing we can do".

Pretty much. Like any other country when the offender is not within their jurisdiction.

Except the US sees itself as having a natural right to breach the sovereignty of other nations. In the likely event that Assange is let go, there's every chance he'll be targetted for state-ordered kidnapping - sorry, "extraordinary rendition" - so he'll have to flee to some backarse of nowhere anyway.

The only reason he didn't do a Snowden in the first place is because the UK would have picked him up at the airport.

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

My stance is quite simple. He helped a total ****tard like Trump get elected so i have zero respect for him. He started out with noble intentions but they all went out the window when he started acting as a putin shill. The US can go throw him into a dark hole.

If he dumped emails on the Trump campaign would that have been "noble intentions" as you put it? Your lack of an anti-partisan perspective is quite scary and like I said already, totalitarian.

He's officially being done for the Manning thing anyway so like you said it's a moot point so let's move on.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Any request to extradite Assange for wikileaks is no more legitimate than a U.S. court bringing charges against Saddam Hussein.

So anyone can commit cross-border computer crime and have immunity?

It doesn't work like that (unless you happen to live in Russia, China, North Korea etc. and stay on the right side of your local regime.)

seamus wrote: »

Pretty much. Like any other country when the offender is not within their jurisdiction.

Jesus wept. :rolleyes: you're so wrong you're not even wrong.

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

If he dumped emails on the Trump campaign would that have been "noble intentions" as you put it? Your lack of an anti-partisan perspective is quite scary and like I said already, totalitarian.

He's officially being done for the Manning thing anyway so like you said it's a moot point so let's move on.

Noble intentions go out the window when you only work for one side.

BorneTobyWilde

I bet he was Wiki Leaking his pants when they charged in to drag him out.