nt

He was the recipient (from Manning, who stole the documents), and (though I don't consider him to be in the least a journalist), they can't really go up against someone claiming to be a journalist/publisher.

Manning and Snowden stole stuff (one being prosecuted under the Military Code of Justice, because he was in the military; the other a regular civilian charge).

Which would mean that this whole "I can't go to Sweden to answer the rape charges because the US might extradite me" thing is pretty much bullshit.

United States from extraditing him. It may be that our extradition treaty doesn't include "political" crimes. There was a pretty strong argument for Assange's being able to resist extradition from Sweden.

to pin a conspiracy charge against him. That's why he can't take any chances. Personally, I think he is protected by the First Amendment, but our government doesn't have much respect for the Bill of Rights. They pretty much violate our rights when and as they please.

exposing CIA asset Valerie Plame?

You decide what the difference is.

Assange is not a US citizen and therefore can't be charged with treason in a court that still has some reason about it.

I would be fine with Armitage doing time too.

Wikileaks, despite the lack of knowledge of the average American, is a well respected, multi-award winning International News Site. Part of what is known as the 'new media'. What did they do that could result in any charges by the US??

The SC settled the matter of trying to prosecute News Organizations for publishing Whistle Blower leaks already, so if they try, they will be up against that ruling. I would hope we haven't sunk to the level of prosecuting News Organizations, but I guess we have. Assange himself claims they are trying to do so, but I've been told here they are not.

Wikileaks existed before the US leaks. I know we are very insular here. You might also ask 'why has Kenya not filed charges against Assange'??

Or 'why have the Bankers not filed charges against Assange?

It's hard to prosecute someone for publishing facts.

Unless of course you are a dictatorship.

Assange is not a US Citizen so cannot be charged with 'treason' as advocated by the moron, Sarah Palin among other Right Wing nut jobs.

not fear of prosecution by the US.

custody of the Swedes he could be extradited to the US and disappeared into Gitmo without trial. We know this goes on. Don't be so innocent. Our govt. ghouls want to shut him up. They don't care what he's guilty of.

world to believe they don't have any charges to file. Which was apparent to anyone who was observing the events of the summer that led up to the 'accusations'.

One reason for the attempt to silence Assange. He made the mistake that summer of saying during an interview, that Wikileaks had some documents on a 'major Bank'. When asked if they could 'bring down that bank' he responded, 'perhaps'. One month later all hell broke loose on Wikileaks. The Bank documents were eventually stolen and Wikileaks came under assault by some pretty powerful people. So they managed to ward off THAT crisis, for now.

Wikileaks was responsible for the publishing of documents related to the fraud in Iceland's Banks before that. So when he said they had more Bank documents, they knew what could happen.

The only reason for Assange's situation is to protect the Banks from what happened in Iceland. The bankers there, as a result of Wikileaks publishing the Whistle Blower documents, were arrested and charged with fraud. As were members of Iceland's government. That is what should have happened here and might have had Wikileaks managed to release those documents.

from US law, so why do you continue that line of argument?

continue to speak the truth about this sham of a 'case'. The Swedish Prosecutor has refused over and over again to take the final step necessary to take this case to court. Starting while Assange was in Sweden, waiting to talk to her, she was 'too busy' and told him he was free to leave. Soon as he did, the lies that he 'fled' began, only problem was millions of people had been following closely everything that was happening.

When Assange offered to return immediately, she couldn't find time to make an appointment, 'maybe sometime later, in October'.

There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING preventing her from conducting that interview in any Embassy, eg, the Australian Embassy in London, but she refused.

Even the lunatic lawyer who interjected himself into this mess, (he believes women have no say in whether they were sexually assaulted or not, the government decides that has admitted that if this 'case' ever did get to a real courtroom, it wouldn't stand a chance. Yet he continues to play the game.

Please, the whole world knows what this is all about, except for a few people in this country where the media is so censored no reporter would dare deliver the facts as that would be the end of his/her career. Thank the gods we have foreign and independent media or we all be as ignorant as Faux viewers.

It's a sham going into its fourth year and hopefully, as has been suggested now, the Swedish prosecutor will be investigated for the handling of this case. It was dismissed by a far more reputable prosecutor then the Right Wingers over there, intervened.

Personally I wish she would file those charges, at least the world would get to see the secret claims they supposedly intend to make. But we won't ever see that happen, it's all working just fine the way things are, for now.

Sweden is not obliged to do things Julian's way or to consider his convenience.

Before filing charges in Sweden the prosecutor must interview Assange who is an innocent man. I'm sure as a Democrat you would not dispute the fact that someone who has not even been charged with any crime IS innocent. Let's hope we haven't thrown out all of our stated beliefs yet.

Assange waited in Sweden to speak to the prosecutor. She couldn't find the time.

She then told his lawyer Assange was free to leave, which he was AFTER he went voluntarily to talk to the police, that interview is on the record.

Soon as he left, she suddenly needed to talk to him. He offered to return to Sweden. Funny, each time he offered, she was 'too busy'. She put him off, stating she would get back to him in October. He was of course very stupid to trust these Friends of Rove, but at that time no one knew of Rove's influence in this matter.

Then the lies began to appear through the Right Wing Smear Machine.

'Assange fled'. 'The prosecutor MUST interview him IN Sweden'.

So here, let me clear it up for you and I'm sure that after this you will be accurate in the future when you speak about this case, and avoid the personal attacks, they diminish credibility.


1) Did not flee, on the contrary stayed long past the time he needed to, then offered to return to Sweden. Prosecutor avoided talking to him.

2) No legal requirement that the Prosecutor speak to him in Sweden. Even when people are actually charged with a crime, which he is not, EU countries can and do conduct interviews in other countries. Sweden has done so.

The prosecutor acknowledges this claiming that is her wish that the interview be conducted in Sweden.

'Her decision'!! Not the law as is being thrown around here.

Conclusion: Three years later the Prosecutor is still avoiding talking to Assange. One visit and she could file her charges, IF she has any.

Assange is an innocent man who is being persecutred for telling the truth period.

Even if in good faith a person goes to a new country there can still be a request to extradite.

He may be innocent until proven guilty but that does not mean they can't investigate him on a charge.

Is the UK court in on this too? Why did they fully consider the issue but decide they would extradite for Sweden?

There was an investigation with documented testimony from all the witnesses. THAT is why they cannot file charges, because the early investigation showed no wrong doing on his part. It also has documented the denials of the women. One of them since then changed her story several times so is not a credible witness.

I've read much of the evidence and if I were a prosecutor I would do what the first prosecutor did, dismiss this case.

Or if I were a dishonest prosecutor, I would do what this one is doing, keep delaying it so I don't lose in court and at the same time keep Assange from returning to his work of exposing corruption and wrong doing by governments around the world.

This is a persecution and nothing more. The first prosecutor, very highly regarded did the right thing when she dismissed the case. They would lose badly in any court which even their own lunatic attorney has admitted.

Assange is an innocent man against whom no charges were ever filed after three years of the prosecutor refusing to talk to him.

extradition agreement with their Swedish pals, and Assange jumped UK bail, leaving many of his friends to pay many thousands of pounds because he skipped out after they put up money to keep him out of the pokey.

Some of his loyal fans aren't so loyal anymore, after he fucked them out of their cash and went back on his promise to them: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/04/julian-assange-backers-lose-bail

Julian Assange backers could lose £340,000 in bail money



http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/104354/Jemima-Khan-Blasts-Julian-Assange-For-Jumping-Bail

in foreign countries and there is not a single thing in their laws that prevent it.

Please stop spreading false information. They don't WANT to talk to him. They have had three years to do so. And everyone knows why they won't do it. They have no case and anyone who has looked at the evidence that IS available, knew that three years ago. It's a waste of time to keep spreading these talking points.

I can't believe we are still seeing this claim here where it has debunked over and over again.

But nice try. I'd thank you to stop accusing people of "spreading false information" when you are the one who doesn't have their facts in order.

Here's the bottom line--Sweden has demanded his extradition--that is what they want, and they have international agreements in place with UK. He's a criminal bail-jumper in the UK, to boot.

He doesn't get to make the rules. If he walks out that door, he's going to Sweden to answer sex crime charges.

He's so popular with Ecuador that they just fired the ambassador for failing to get rid of the guy. She was recalled, then shitcanned.

They're sick of him. Only a matter of time before they start turning down the heat and turning off the hot water. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if they slipped him a mickey and then put him and his bed out on the sidewalk....

regard. Please post the law that forbids Sweden from doing what it has done in the past. Even the Swedish Prosecutor has acknowledged that this is possible. And when asked why she will not, she has responded only 'that this is the decision she has made'. So yes, stop spreading false information or else post the law that forbids this.

Because the whole world now knows that there is nothing in the law preventing the Swedish prosecutors from interviewing Assange in London, a step that would end the nonsense and allow them to file their charges, if they have any, no rational person believes there ever was a case.

Another thing, the warrant, such as the one issued by Interpol for Assange who has not been charged with any crimes, is generally issued ONLY for those who HAVE been charged.

So many 'special' arrangements made in a case where after three years the prosecutors still refuse to file charges, using the excuse that they prefer to do so in Sweden, when there is no rational reason why they could not take advantage of the EU privileges they have to interview him London.

Post the law that forbids Sweden from taking the step that would end their delaying tactics and get this case into an actual courtroom or you owe me an apology. Which I do not expect.

Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2013, 03:59 AM - Edit history (1)

judge. He doesn't get to tell the Swedish government how they "ought to" conduct their investigations or carry out their duties. He also doesn't get to order the UK government about, particularly since he was a very rude guest of theirs after they trusted him to not go on a runner and jump bail. He also fucked over a number of former friends, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds....to put it mildly.

He's not The Decider, though he does like to act like one. He's a criminal bail-jumper in the UK, and he's wanted in Sweden. And neither Sweden, nor the UK, is obliged to give that bail-jumping little shit a moment of their time.

Based on his prior behavior (jumping bail and fucking his backers), he doesn't deserve consideration. He has a few choice choices--sit in that embassy until Ecuador decides to move to bigger, better digs and leaves him behind, or Ecuador just says "OK, enough" and gives him the boot, leaving him without diplomatic protection, or he can walk out the door and face the music like a Big Boy.

I don't have any sympathy for rapists or molesters. He needs to learn that actions have consequences.

they file charges against him. Which they refuse to do. That is their problem, either file the charges or stop playing these games. But then, they don't care about the charges, do they?? They got what they wanted, Wikileaks defunded, illegally btw, and Assange, at least they thought, silenced. What did they lose? Trust, respect and status. His otoh, grows around the world.

I cannot understand how anyone who cares about this country defends the policies, begun by Bush and continuing after we threw out Republicans and the world and we, drew a sigh of relief that finally, after eight long years, American could be proud again. Instead, nothing much has changed, certainly with the very policies that caused the US to lose its moral authority in the world.

I see you have back tracked from your original claim AFTER attacking me for pointing out a false statement.

Assange is an innocent man who is being persecuted because Wikileaks threatened the banks. It was not the War Crimes, no one in this country as it is today, cares about war crimes, nor was it the cables, Gates himself said there was no damage, just a little embarrassment maybe.

No, it was the info Wikileaks had on the banks, revealed by Assange one month prior to these allegations that cause the persecution of Wikileaks. It worked, the documents were stolen and the people did not learn about the corruption of our banks, until the economic collapse destroyed millions of lives here and around the globe.

Wikileaks exposed the crooked banks in Iceland, so it was very necessary to stop them. Assange was foolish to mention what they had in that interview. But we are the losers, the American people. He will be a hero in the history books. Just as others who tried to expose crimes who were also persecuted during their lifetimes, but with the passage of time, have gained the status denied them in life.

He was being held within the European Union-- by UK-- and he jumped bail, making him a criminal in UK as well.

One more time--he's the criminal. He's not the decider. He's appealed the decision all the way up to the Swedish Supreme Court and they've told him to pound sand. If that's your idea of "back tracking" you have a curious definition of same. You either have to work with rule of law, or not. I prefer rule of law to cult of personality.

He's got to face the music and dance, and he'll do it sooner or later, unless he manages to cling to the undercarriage of the Ambassador's car and sneak onto a plane in a giant diplomatic pouch.

I find it amusing that Poor Little Assange gets all the benefit of the doubt here, and his victims in Sweden get such short shrift. I also find it hilarious that the courts of Sweden, a sovereign nation, get zero respect from you. Why do I think if the Swedish courts were tweaking Dick Cheney's nose, or pulling Obama's ear, for this or that, you'd suddenly find a way to be their biggest fan?

Interesting, too, how Assange inserts himself into Snowden's business, while Greenwald insists he has no role. Can we say attention-monger? http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/06/julian-assange-wikileaks-edward-snowden/66420/

Amazing how he always is inserting himself in any and every major story, Hastings, Snowden--I'm surprised his legal team wasn't in touch with Paula Dean!

alleged. Interesting to see that contradiction in one sentence.

And no, rape is not the allegation. In Sweden which I am sure you know, what he is suspected of is merely a [b]misdeanor.

But thanks for the demonstration of how facts mean little when it comes to Assange and whistle blowers in general here when it comes to anyone who has exposed crooked Banks and dictators and others by providing a safe place for Whistle Blowers.



The bottom line is if there is a case against him, why has it not yet been filed after three years?

The Swedish Prosecutor has refused to act according to the law and conduct the interview that would clear the way for her to file charges, IF there is a case.

She has been accused of prosecutorial misconduct and may eventually face charges herself for her refusal to move this case forward.

Lol, this conversation isn't about Snowden or Greenwald, it was about your posting false information about Sweden's laws. I would expect someone who was genuinely interested in the truth to acknowledge the facts. Anyone who isn't, will move on to the expected smear campaign.

And then we have to consider the information that surfaced later. of Karl Rove's presence in Sweden and his close relationship with the current PM of Sweden, known as Sweden's Ronald Reagan.

The bottom line is, if he isn't one, why doesn't he get his ass to Sweden and answer the charges.

And "LOL"--who's sitting on his ass in an unlit cell in Knightsbridge? Surely not the Swedish Prosecutor.

There's nothing to "LOL" about here--Assange molested two women. The Swedes want him in Sweden. The UK government agrees. And no one cares what "Sabrina 1's" or "MaDem's" opiinion is on the matter.

Actually, there is one thing to "LOL" about--your suggestion that the idiot who couldn't even get the numbers right for Mitt the Shit in Ohio has some kind of nefarious hold over the "Ronald Reagan of Sweden." Oh, those Swedes! They're a sovereign nation--until you decide they aren't! Mind the Reynolds Wrap!

Assange has the power to put this behind him. The problem is, his star is fading, his importance is waning, but he'd rather try for continued relevance from his hidey hole in the Ecuadoran Embassy than be labeled what he is--a rapist. It's a no-win for him.

Exactly, that's what he and his followers demand, with his demands that Sweden change its system for him.

that's not on. He is like a spoiled child, learning for the first time that he can't have his way.

There's a trade agreement between USA and Ecuador that's up for renewal in a month or so. Seeing as USA is Ecuador's largest trading partner (Ecuador uses the US dollar as its currency), I have to wonder if Ecuador is starting to get sick of Julian, and his potential to cost Ecuador real money:

http://www.producenews.com/index.php/more-floral-articles/floral/10504-ecuador-trade-office-kicks-off-campaign-for-trade-pact-extension

in procedure and terminology (including the meaning of "interview" in this affair), the UK courts determined that Sweden had requested Mr Assange be rendered to them for the purposes of a prosecution for rape and related allegations

and as such can question a suspect in any other EU country and has done so in the past. The prosecutor does not deny this. So stop making stuff up. The only reason she has given when asked why she will not take the final step that would clear the way to file charges, is 'because that is the decision I have made'.

Clearly she does not want to take this case to court. Everyone who knows anything about sex abuse cases, and ironically THIS prosecutor has stated this in the past, 'it is essential that these cases are heard as quickly as possible as any delay can have negative results'. Yes, the same prosecutor who advocated for speedy trials in these cases, for some reason, has delayed this case now for three years and has refused all offers to make it possible for her to file her charges. That plus the 'evidence' that has already been revealed, has led most thinking people to the conclusion that there is no case.

No one can 'win' in court unless there is a law to back up that win. Please post the Swedish law that prevents a prosecutor from interviewing a suspect in another EU country. I know you cannot, because it does not exist.

Findings of facts and reasons

interview she needs to do in order file charges. There is nothing in Swedish law that prevents her from conducting her interview in London. She has turned down multiiple opportunities to do so, both in Sweden itself where she was too busy to meet with him, and later in London.

Any good prosecutor who has a case would have conducted this interview, three years ago in Sweden and if she screwed up there, would have jumped at the opportunity to do so in London where she has the full force of the laws of another EU member should she want to take him into custody AFTER the interview.

So, after three years of refusing every opportunity to take the final step necessary to file charges, no one believes there ever was a case or ever will be.

or "interview" actually means, is to argue frivolously about the proper translation of Swedish words into English, or to argue about the proper way to compare the different prosecution procedures in Sweden or the UK; and Mr Assange's lawyers have already argued that issue in open court in the UK -- and have lost

Nice try though. When proven wrong, point somewhere else.

The Swedish Prosecutor obviously does not want to file charges since she has refused over and over again to take the one step available to her in order to do so.

When a prosecutor avoids filing charges, that generally means they have no case.

suspects in other EU Nations. The Prosecutor has refused to take that step which would clear the way to file charges in Sweden. As a result the consensus is that there never was a case.

As for the British Courts, that same court refused to 'render' a murderous dictator, Pinochet, for prosecution when asked to do so. That court shamed itself and widely viewed as being merely a puppet of the Western powers that desperately want to hide so much of what they have been up to.

I know a lot of British Courts, not particularly interested in their 'rulings'.

The Prosecutor REFUSED over and over again to conduct the interview that would have cleared the way to file charges. This case could have been over more than two years ago. She did not need to go to the British Courts, why did she do that when he was available all along????


Because they have no case.

They also don't prosecute their cases in British Courts.

And who suggested they prosecute their case in an embassy??

THEY HAVE NO CASE TO FILE.. THERE ARE NO CHARGES..

No Charges = No Case

How hard is this to understand?

I think the other poster must be right - the issue is already decided in the UK courts. julian had his chance to argue all the way to the highest UK court, and that argument is over. Settled against him. This is why he jumped bail and fled to an embassy.

All he did was publish documents given to him by Manning. He himself didn't take or leak any classified documents.

him at all? There are three or four posters who, at the same time, try to downplay what he revealed, and discredit him as a human being, much less an employee.

Which is it? Is he a traitor, or is he someone who simply brought something back INTO the light that we all should have known already, in which case he's not a criminal at ALL?

Funny though, how the government decided to seal the indictment.

Transparency... as clear as mud.

the importance of the leaks. It WAS on the NSA's 'talking point memo'. I'm curious to see how they explain this.

of his short employment as a systems administrator at BAH. He then fled to China and released several documents just in time to disrupt somewhat the Obama-Xi summit, releasing a few more just in time to disrupt somewhat the G8 summit

I don't know what exactly he has, and I don't know whether the DoJ knows exactly what he has

But would I expect some prosecution in such a case, regardless of the content of the material copied, on the theory that some prosecutions are intended to discourage certain behaviors

If, for example, I wandered down to the police station and hot-wired a police car and drove it harmlessly around the block and returned it undamaged without inconveniencing anyone at all, I would expect to be prosecuted, even I left a nice box of fresh donuts in the front seat as a thank-you -- because the police are eager to discourage clever folk from borrowing police vehicles, whatever the reason. And I think prosecution would be likely, even if lots of folk already knew those particular police cars could be hot-wired readily

The sealed indictment may not be that unusual for such a case: Mr Snowden has absconded, and prosecutors may prefer not to let him know much about the outlines of the case against him until he is in custody. His comments from China strongly suggest that he is aware that the actions, which he claims to have taken, are likely grounds for prosecution

Treason is defined in the Constitution, and probably nobody (except a handful of blowhard attention-whores) believes Mr Snowden's affair is covered by that definition

And treason doesn't apply in this case IMO.

I would add that in my weak mind, the timing was coincidental.

When they balked, he went to Greenwald and notified WAPO that his relationship with them was no longer "exclusive" ... the link between the two newspapers was that videographer, who got credited in both publications.

He wanted to shit on "Sunnyland." And he did.

decided to become judge and jury. He felt like the people had the right to know, but instead of going to the IG he went to Hong Kong. Every agent and every foreign asset we have right now are in limbo and possibly in danger. Hopefully they gov't has an inventory of missing docs so they can mitigate damage.

Let me help you out....

There has been no indictment issued yet, what has been issued is called a criminal complaint.

These are two different things. The indictment follows the complaint.

Sealed federal complaints and sealed indictments are pretty much common practice in these kinds of federal cases, especially when the suspect isn't in custody and no warrant for arrest has been issued. The INDICTMENT will be unsealed once the suspect is in custody.

Also, whether or not the phone record seizure was known previously isn't the issue. The issue is with his unauthorized release of classified documents. If you read the PDF posted throughout DU, you will see that is the case.

BTW, Snowden didn't just release the FISA warrant for the phone record collection, he also revealed details of US hacking against China and US surveillance of foreign officials.

Any questions?

No matter what I might ask, I know what the nature of your answers will be...

You, are a one-trick-pony. Don't worry though; you're not alone.

From reading many of your posts on this subject, it's clear you have no clue how our criminal justice system works.

Your reply to the OP only confirmed this.

You sure do seem frantic lately... and the indictment is on its way.

The Justice Department, in a criminal complaint unsealed Monday, charged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with using a "weapon of mass destruction" in the Boston Marathon bombings.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/criminal-complaint-united-states-vs-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/412/

A one-page criminal complaint unsealed Friday in federal court in Alexandria, Va., says Snowden engaged in unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information. Both are charges under the Espionage Act. Snowden also is charged with theft of government property. All three crimes carry a maximum 10-year prison penalty.

The U.S. government has charged former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden with espionage and theft.
http://news.yahoo.com/criminal-complaint-filed-against-edward-snowden-235951095.html

A criminal complaint is a short statement of essential facts about an alleged crime, which, when filed in Court, formally begins the criminal process.
http://www.aroostook.me.us/departments/districtattorney/28-faqcrimevictims/49-whatis.html

U.S. federal prosecutors, by filing a criminal complaint, lay claim to a legal basis to make the request of the authorities in Hong Kong, the Post reported. The prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment and can then take steps to secure Snowden's extradition from Hong Kong for a criminal trial in the United States, the newspaper reported.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-snowden-charges-idUSBRE95K18220130621

Snowden cannot be extradited until he has been formally charged. Snowden HAS NOT yet been formally CHARGED. There is NO indictment like you claimed in your reply to the OP.

I'm trying to understand your point from these links to news articles.

You're way out of your depth.

outrage that the indictment was sealed. You don't like facts when they don't confirm your bias?

Let me put it this way....many times, people who have clearances pick up the paper, or a magazine, and read about some project they have worked on, that is heavily classified, and they realize that elements of the classified program are being revealed in the material that they are reading. Sometimes the material is accurate, sometimes, it's close but no cigar, and sometimes, the reporters will get it all fucking wrong.

That does NOT mean that the material the government personnel with clearances have been briefed on or are working with is suddenly "declassified." The folks reading the paper can't call up the reporters and "correct the record" with an "Oh no, it was this way, not that way--x, not y!!"

Until the program has been declassified, it's a crime to reveal it. And it's always a crime to steal documents from work and sashay off to China with them....always, always, always.

18 USC 641 Theft of property and records

18 USC 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 USC 798 Disclosure of classified information

Not treason. If the prosecutor can prove the elements of those statutes, or one of them, he's liable to up to 10 years in prison for each violation.

I have no definite idea exactly what Mr Assange's role in the Manning leaks was, and I do not completely rule out any possibility that under some circumstances Mr Assange might be lawfully charged, depending on his exact role in the Manning matter, but the prosecutions of Manning and Snowden are more immediately predictable, due to the fact that their access to data brought with it restrictions on how they handled it

As a general rule, I am not opposed to necessity defenses, in which a defendant argues that an otherwise illegal act was required to avoid a greater harm, as in the Amy Carter case in the Reagan era, but it's always a bit of a crap shoot

AMY CARTER IS ACQUITTED OVER PROTEST
By MATTHEW L. WALD, Special to the New York Times
Published: April 16, 1987
Amy Carter .. and 13 other protesters were acquitted today of trespassing and disorderly conduct .. last November. The defendants had argued that crimes by the agency justified their actions ... Describing their .. arguments .. as an effort to ''put the CIA on trial,'' the protesters brought in 11 witnesses ... to testify about .. CIA misconduct ... Judge Richard F. Connon .. described the ''necessity defense,'' a tenet of Massachusetts case law that exonerates people who commit crimes if they reasonably believe that their actions will prevent other crimes that pose the ''clear and immediate threat'' of greater harm ... Hampshire County District Attorney, W. Michael Ryan Jr., said he believed the verdict demonstrated a distaste among citizens for the activities of the CIA ...

me what he wanted me to steal." Or "He paid me to get X, Y and Z."

Something on those lines--and even that would be a tough sell. From what I understand, Manning gifted that pile of gossip message traffic to Assange, with no strings and without Assange telling him what to do.

but certainly had Mr Assange sent Mr Manning $100K worth of gold bars via FedEx, prosecutors would perhaps feel strongly that Mr Assange was provably in violation of various US statutes and should be brought to trial

Even if they are entirely speculative.

The only acceptable POV is "Poor Victim."

because hey, its just a discussion, and its just speculative, i could be wrong and if im proven wrong i will change my speculation.
but until then ill just keep making unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by any facts.

so how many people did you rape yesterday?
because i read a statistic from the UN yesterday about the violence against women, which pretty much spelled out how you rape people

you poor victim you.

see how ridicules this is?
but this is how you keep on smearing others.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you are incapable of parsing like most people.

There's a difference between looking at a scenario and what's happening in the nexus, and "making shit up." The former is what I am doing, the latter is what you are doing.

See how ridiculous this is?

Don't keep wearing out that "smear" word, now! You'll turn it into a drinking game for the imbibers among us.

He will likely have good lawyers and they will use everything they can. Which is why our country is not so bad after all. Eddie does get to defend himself in a court and since he's not in the military, a jury. Funny that from a country that's so terrible!

Frankly, I don't think there is any legal basis to charge Assange. He has no legal obligation to protect US classified information.

offenses committed while the alleged offender was outside its jurisdictional territory. Acts of piracy on the high seas might be an old example

immaterial when it comes to issues of jurisdiction and such.

If a hacker in Iceland breaks into a Chinese government's data repository in Beijing and releases sensitive documents, I would think that the hacker would not only be guilty of hacking but potentially of espionage.

I would think that accepting such documents for transfer or publication knowing what they are would also make one guilty of espionage. I think there should be journalistic protections but those protections should not extend to the willy-nilly release of hundreds of thousands of documents for which there is no legitimate story.

Release of sensitive documents by itself is not a story.

That law has been on the books for a couple of centuries and has always stood up to court challenges. It seems pretty unique for that type of law, though. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, just someone who reads a lot.

and Manning was charged and prosecuted. Just like Snowden.

They won't even see the same courtrooms, never mind the same holding cells.

think bigger picture.

Civilians generally get much lighter sentences, on average.

Life in a military detention facility is a very different existence than life in a civilian prison--in some ways it's better, in other ways, worse. But it's not the same.

"Big picture?" Both individuals are, potentially, looking at a long time as guests of the government in environments that are very different, culturally.

which is what the OP is all about. Snowden and Manning can be prosecuted for the same reason - they are US citizens that broke US law. The same cannot be said for Assange.

My only point.

If I walk into a classified office, steal a document, and then walk out and hand it to you, you've committed no crime. I'm the thief, I'm the one unlawfully distributing classified material, I'm the one with the problem.

Assange does have a problem, though--he is under the gun for committing sexual crimes in Sweden, and they want him called to answer those charges. He's using the USA Boogieman excuse to not address his criminal misbehaviors.

He'll probably end up spending more time in his Knightsbridge prison (which I'll bet isn't as nice as a Swedish one) than he would were he jailed in Sweden. He's been kicking the can down the road, but eventually the piper must be paid.

If the US charged him, then he'd have a better argument to stop extradition to Sweden. Perhaps he'll be charged once extraditable.

Or perhaps he's on the White House's secret kill list.

it becomes political and undermines the criminal investigation in Sweden.

The fact that the U.S. has charged Snowden with espionage is already politically charged.