Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

The irony in all of this is, if he had given himself up and faced trial and was convicted he would probably be released by now. instead he has chosen in effect to incarcerate himself indefinitely.

Personally i believe he has been the victim of a stitch up. This is not about jail time for Julian. It's an act of defiance against the TPTB.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I rather doubt that. I think that they want to get him in to Sweden, so that he can be more easily extradited to the USA to face espionage charges. If that happens, he will just disappear, permanently.

originally posted by: Brotherman
He should've turned himself in long ago while he was heavily in the public eye, he would have probably been treated better. Now he is and his story is slipping into obscurity who knows what will happen to him. The way I see it they will get him eventually. I dont think the embassy is going to be a permanent thing, what kind of life is that anyway?

If you consider what happened to Manning, and the government's behavior with Snowden, Drake, Kiriakou and a few others, it is very easy to understand why he didn't turn himself in.

More compelling--he is INNOCENT. The first prosecutor on the case dismissed the charges because THERE WAS NO CASE.

This is political maneuvering by the US and Sweden and Britain. Assange has exposed their crimes, and for that he must be punished in their minds.

a reply to: Salander

What I think funny is the US throwing possible charges like treason out for him.

Stupid cause
1) He is not a US citizen
2)he was not in the US when he released his files

And us you said on the rape charges in Sweden they are all but dismissed.

a reply to: Salander

a reply to: Salander

a reply to: Salander
This is different assange is a publisher not a whistleblower those who gave him the info are already in jail

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Salander
This is different assange is a publisher not a whistleblower those who gave him the info are already in jail

Still don't see how the U.S. has any legal leg to stand on.

Yes those US citizen who broke NDA's to give him the information yes but him no. He is not a U.S. citizen not bound by NDA's

a reply to: crazyewok
I dont disagree with you, even slightly.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: crazyewok
I dont disagree with you, even slightly.

Don't get me wrong I think he was irresponsible with some of the leaks, but irresponsibility does not equal illegal.

I have found out classified stuff and though it would not be illegal for me to post such stuff , it would be irresponsible so I refrain.

a reply to: crazyewok

He handled / accessed classified military / state department information. It does not matter if he is a US citizen as he can still be charged by the US. Also if I am not mistaken Assange assisted Manning in bypassing the filters in place on the email system by providing a program that could encrypt the info.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Clicking the link will provide more of the legalities involved in that law.


So actually yes, the US does have a leg to stand on.

Secondly since some people dont quite understand how this works who try to argue Assange is a "journalist" - Journalists are not immune from prosecution for releasing classified information. The Pentagon Papers SCOTUS decision never extended any protections and the journalists involved in that were actually charge with a crime. During the trial something occurred that resulted in a mistrial and the government opted not to refile the charges.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press however it has limits when it comes to violating the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And I say that law is immoral bull#!

Sorry but he is NOT and US citizen ,signed no NDA and was NOT in the USA so no law broke as far as I am cocerned. so as far as I am concerned the USA can take its pathetic laws and shove them up it red white and blue arse!

I do not recognize his "crimes"!

Manning yes Assange no.

One can NOT commit a crime when NOT in that country territory! It bull# to think overwise and pure American arrogance to think it can enforce it pathic laws across the boarders of sovereign countrys!

a reply to: Brotherman

I bet you don't know how wrong you are.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah it's bull# law, but as long as the UK remains signed up in agreement then yep, it's legal, internationally speaking.
Cameron et all are the ones to take this up with.
It is why Assange has gone with sanctuary at the Ecuador embassy over trusting UK or Swedish legal process which is likely to see him extradited to the US.
I'd do the same for sure in a similar situation.

*Edit*
Assange has already served time and continues to do so, just in a nicer central London cell than the average detainee in UK jurisdiction.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
He handled / accessed classified military / state department information. It does not matter if he is a US citizen as he can still be charged by the US. Also if I am not mistaken Assange assisted Manning in bypassing the filters in place on the email system by providing a program that could encrypt the info.

It's a matter of jurisdiction. Assange is not a US citizen and was not on US soil therefore the US has no jurisdiction here. It would be like if we went and arrested some random guy in Amsterdam for using drugs that are legal there but illegal in the US. It makes no sense at all.

In order for the US to get him, the country he's in would have to agree to apprehend him and extradite him to the US but he hasn't done anything wrong there either so it would be illegal.

The whole reason Ecuador came to his side is that Assange's fears of an illegal extradition to the US were proven highly likely when he offered to answer any questions the authorities asked him... from within the embassy. Ecuador was fully willing to kick him out if his answers weren't satisfactory, but Sweden wouldn't do it which made it seem like they weren't really after him but instead just wanted to transport him.

The bottom line is that unless you're carrying a US passport the US's laws stop at the US's borders. If someone in the US wanted to they could release classified Russian info and it would be the exact same type of situation, not being a Russian citizen or on Russian soil they wouldn't be subject to Russian laws.

a reply to: Aazadan
a reply to: crazyewok

His citizenship is irrelevant. He assisted Manning in retrieving classified information by providing the encryption software in order to obtain the information. He then published that information. Information that did not belong to him.

There are plenty of examples of citizens of one country using the internet to violate laws in another country and we have seen those individuals charged and extradited.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

That was my thought, they should get a large wooden crate mark it a diplomatic bag and call it a day. As far as I know there is no rule on the size or contents of a diplomatic pouch

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah but the extraditions can only happen with the legal consent of other nations.
The UK is fully signed up to the US when it says "provide us with that person".
It is the UK government UK citizens should be lobbying, they agreed it.

*Edit*
I totally understand Assange trusting the Ecuador embassy in London over the UK government in London.
He must be the longest living sanctuary seeker in central London for many years, no?
...for that alone his name won't become unknown too quickly, he's like the ultimate asylum seeker, stuck in an embassy in London so better off than most but hey, still a prisoner.

a reply to: grainofsand

and thus far no charges have been filed against Assange by the US. Although there is the sweden issue he has been trying to get out of.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: grainofsand

and thus far no charges have been filed against Assange by the US. Although there is the sweden issue he has been trying to get out of.

So, after being involved in publishing lots of stuff the US government was unhappy about you would allow them access to you?!

The moment he was in the custody of UK or Swedish authorities he would be chased by the US through mutually agreed international agreements.
Lol, do you not think that the US would take advantage of all internationally agreed legislation?

...I'm curious to know why you see a different narrative? Do you have secret contacts?