On January 26, 2011, Fred Burton, the vice president of Stratfor, a leading private intelligence firm which bills itself as a kind of shadow CIA, sent an excited email to his colleagues. "Text Not for Pub," he wrote. "We" – meaning the U.S. government – "have a sealed indictment on Assange" . . . . (snip) Burton, a former federal agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Services, had reason to trust his information. He often boasted of his stellar government sources ("CIA cronies," he called them in another email), and in his role as a government counter-terror agent he had worked on some of the most high-profile terrorism cases of recent years . . . . (snip) As Salon's Glenn Greenwald reported last May, a secret grand jury had begun taking testimony from Wikileaks supporters in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228

The fact is, most legal experts agree that there's no way to indict Assange for espionage, since he's not a US citizen (i.e., the US isn't his country to begin with, so he can't betray it. Only way to get him is as a co-conspirator with Manning; but apparently they haven't been able to get Manning to implicate him, despite subjecting him to conditions widely considered to be torture; or else they're keeping the indictment secret, perhaps bec. they know if they reveal it, they would be prevented from extradicting him from any number of countries that refuse to allow extradition if the person could face capital punishment.)

Ah, sh*t. The story's gotten rather long and a bit complicated, and the powerful have thrown the full force of their p.r. machines at it. But there's a lot of reliable info out there; if you genuinely want it, let me know. The bottom line is, the powerful have determined to do whatever it takes to destroy Assange and Wikileaks.

Of course, at that point Assange and his supporters had been screeching for over a year that the Swedish investigation was a diabolical American plot to drag Assange off for trial in the US -- so the Feb story is "very convenient" for Assange. But, of course, there's no evidence other than the claim by Wikileaks that this alleged email is authentic

In any case, the claim, that the Swedish investigation was a diabolical American plot to drag Assange off for trial in the US, makes no sense -- because if Assange is extradited to Sweden, then both Sweden and the UK would be required to sign off on an extradition to the US

Lulzsec/Anonymous for hacking.

Yeah, it's not like BOTH OF THEM ALREADY SIGNED OFF on rendition.

being pushed around by global criminals. They are rude, crude and unrefined and take stupid risks. I love them.

includes a "conditional release" clause which essentially allows to release Assange to the U.S. on loan. Our treaty with the UK contains no such clause.
http://www.swedenversusassange.com/US-Extradition.html

EU country and then a non-EU country wants to extradite the person, Sweden needs permission from the first EU country

So for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden after UK delivers him to Sweden is procedurally more difficult than for US to extradite Assange directly from UK

Facts about extradition and surrender
... Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations. Concerning surrender to another country within the European Union, the Act states that the executing country under certain circumstances must approve a further surrender. On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA ...
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/

I won't really pay much attention to what Assange and his supporting websites say on stuff like this, since he's a lying fuckwit, who's off whining today to Ecuador that he's likely to be seized as a political prisoner and whisked off to the US to be executed, which is a big load of horse-pucky

which is why they're working so hard to shut him down.

Can't think of another guy pursued like this for questioning re- sex without a condom.

which, if convicted, could result in a death sentence.

in the American rendition program against all human rights treaties they ever signed. They only stopped because they were sued in the EU and lost. I'd really trust the Swedes to live up to their general agreements, not.

You are the first I've seen to dispute the authenticity of the Stratfor emails. You seem to make all your assumptions against Assange.

What's your source for saying the UK would be required to sign off on extradition to the US from Sweden? (On edit: Nevermind; I see the Swedish prosecutor says it. However, I also understand the UK has refused to say it won't consent.)

Here's a new piece by Amy Goodman on the situation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/31/americas-vendetta-against-wikileaks-julian-assange

Among those emails was one confirming that there was a secret indictment of Assange.

No one of course was surprised. Joe Lieberman wanted him put to death (and yes, the NYT and La Monde, and the Guardian also for publishing the leaked documents) and Sarah Palin called him a traitor, never mind that he is not even a citizen.

Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of the 'Patriots' did not like someone exposing Bush's war crimes. So with the entire Rightwing echo chamber calling for death to Assange for publishing the facts, how long was it going to be before they got their way, they always do.

But John Conyers deserves credit for the hearings he held opposing any such indictment, speaking about the dangerous path it would be for any Democratic country to go down and the chilling effect such an outrageous indictment would have on the press's 1st Amendment rights all over the world.

But as we all know, Democrats have zero power in this country. It is run by the Right, and when I see rightwing talking points and policies, such as this outrage, here on a Democratic forum, I know we have much work to do, and very little hope.

At least we on the Left used to stand up against the Right when they tried things like this. We were not fooled by the propaganda.

But something bad is going on and I am not the only one to notice it, and it is the reason so many are leaving boards like these and turning their attention to the real world.