Assange gets away with it

[Gob]

The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say.



The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been taken and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impanelled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against the Australian, who has sought asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top secret military and diplomatic documents.

The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information - such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning - with violations of the Espionage Act.

But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.

"The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists," former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said.

"And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange."

Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realised that they have what they described as a "New York Times problem". If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organisations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain's The Guardian, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/julian-assa ... z2lncgxBvZ

[Lord Jim]

Hopefully this is a disinformation feint...

Designed to convince Asswipeange that he can go back to face the music in Sweden without fear of extradition to the US...

I'd like to think our government is that clever...

Unhappily, recent experience would suggest that it is not...

Of course as soon as he sets foot outside the Ecuadoran Embassy, he faces a raft of UK charges as well, related to his flight from the British judicial system...

[Lord Jim]

Frankly at this point, I'm much more concerned about bringing The Traitor Snowden to justice then I am about Asswipe...

The Traitor Snowden's Treason is The Treason That Just Keeps On Giving...

In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to prevent him from flying to Iceland, or Ecuador, or any other third country he was looking to go to... even Venezuela...

Inserting a commando unit to execute a "snatch and grab" in Russia is probably out of the question....

[rubato]

Still, Assange has done nothing harmful that anyone has been able to point out.



yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Has Snowden?

[rubato]

No, not either. Embarrassing, true, but embarrassing in the way that makes people have to cop to what they were doing and have to deal with it more honestly.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say

I seem to recall saying this a number of times. I don't recall hearing about any provision in law that says it is ok to publish classified information as long as someone has already done it. Either all or guilty or none are guilty. And spare me the "they were just reporting it because it was news" crap. There were ways to report it that did not have to involve divulging the secrets that are at issue.

[Lord Jim]

government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say

That argument is rubbish. There's nothing that "forces" the government to conduct prosecutions it chooses not to conduct.

In addition, in Asswipe's case, there's always been the quite logical and real possibility (given the communication in involved between them and the expertise he possessed) that he, or members of his terrorist organization acting on his instruction, provided The Traitor Manning with assistance in stealing the classified information and/or concealing the theft.

[Lord Jim]

One of the things I've found interesting in looking at the cases of these three scumbags, (Manning, Asswipe, and Snowden) is how despite the fact that they are so different in background, they have so much in common from a psychological profile standpoint...

All three are arrogant, narcissistic, self-absorbed types with delusions of grandeur. Essentially failures, who fiercely believe they really ought to be considered as more important than they are, and are willing to do basically anything to try to prove it.

The psychology of these three is very similar to that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Big RR]

In addition, in Asswipe's case, there's always been the quite logical and real possibility (given the communication in involved between them and the expertise he possessed) that he, or members of his terrorist organization acting on his instruction, provided The Traithor Manning with assistance in stealing the classified information and/or concealing the theft.

And if that can be proven, I imagine the DOJ would have brought those charges. Why do you think they haven't?

[Lord Jim]

I imagine the DOJ would have brought those charges.

Why?

Why should they bring any charges until they formally seek his extradition? All that would do would be to encourage the rat to burrow further into his hole...

Again, it is my hope that this story is a disinformation plant designed to give Asswipe a false sense of security...

Look closely at this story...

No one currently working at the Justice department is willing to go on the record, (one former official is quoted giving his opinion) and the only definitive information imparted is "a formal decision has not been taken and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impanelled"...

The story could be a plant, or it could also be the case of the opinion of some low ranking flunky at the Justice Department giving his opinion to a reporter who in turn has puffed the story up beyond it's true significance...

[rubato]

government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say

I seem to recall saying this a number of times. I don't recall hearing about any provision in law that says it is ok to publish classified information as long as someone has already done it. Either all or guilty or none are guilty. And spare me the "they were just reporting it because it was news" crap. There were ways to report it that did not have to involve divulging the secrets that are at issue.

I thought that was what happened with the Pentagon papers, once they were published in the public record (via the congressional record in that case) they couldn't prosecute the Times or Ellsberg for doing so.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

If the DoJ had a case which was not an embarrassment to themselves they would file it. If anyone had evidence that either had done harm perhaps someone could say what it is?

Letting others see in public what you said about them in private is often a good thing. Its a way of putting them on notice indirectly, without violating the norms of politeness you've still told them you dislike their behavior or don't trust them in some way. Motivating for them to hear it.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

What simplistic naive twaddle...

Pretty much what I'd expect from a man with your grasp of geo-politics...

[Scooter]

There's nothing that "forces" the government to conduct prosecutions it chooses not to conduct.

It could be considered selective prosecution and would thus constitute a violation of the 14th Amendment. Do you imagine that all government lawyers are idiots and you are the sole fount of infallible legal knowledge in the country?

In addition, in Asswipe's case, there's always been the quite logical and real possibility (given the communication in involved between them and the expertise he possessed) that he, or members of his terrorist organization acting on his instruction, provided The Traitor Manning with assistance in stealing the classified information and/or concealing the theft.

If you have evidence of that, then you should hand it over to the Justice Department to help them make the case. Otherwise, supposition is not evidence.

[Andrew D]

Something I posted three years ago may shed some light:

Last time I looked -- the results of which may still be here or at The Other Place -- the assertedly applicable statute made it a crime for anyone who had authorized access to classified documents to disseminate them to people who did not have authorized access to them. It conspicuously did not make it a crime for a person who did not have authorized access to them to receive them from someone who did. That was only one statute; there may be other relevant statutes. I don't know, and I don't feel like hunting it down.

I just notice that the State Department's legal person said that the documents "were provided in violation of US law". And he said that "As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing." But he conspicuously did not say whose violation of the law is ongoing.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were in Koh's position, and I really thought that Assange was violating the law, I would have said something more like: "By receiving documents which you knew were classified, you violated U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]. By retaining possession of those documents, you are continuing to violate U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]. By disseminating those documents, you are violating U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]."

But Koh said none of those things. In short, Koh did not come right out and say that Assange is doing anything illegal. Why not?

It makes one wonder ....

[Sue U]

As I recall, the Justice Department was having problems in the Assange case meeting the elements of any prosecutable offense. Receiving classified government information is not an offense under the Espionage Act, and even if it were, to the extent espionage is considered a political rather than a criminal offense there is no extradition available. It would be laughable to charge him with merely "receiving stolen property."