News: 1609764193

An exchange for one of theirs, you know who.

The "diplomat" who drove on the wrong side of the road and killed Harry Dunn?

If that's who you mean, why not say that?

I am sure she can find a doc to declare her suicidal or autistic. Heck Trump found one to say he has bone spurs to avoid the draft, maybe he can give her a referral.

Prosecute him in the UK for all the crimes he comitted here, then deport him back to Australia

Is Journalism a crime?

Journalism is not a crime, I don't think that there is any evidence that Assange hacked anything, he simply published documents that were sent to him - certainly he may have been manipulated by the "hackers" on all sides but I don't see how he can be prosecuted by a country that stands up shouting:

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation ...

>I don't think that there is any evidence that Assange hacked anything

Assange attempted to crack hashed password for SIPRNet accounts, with the express intention of procuring more documents than Manning was otherwise allowed to access. He was not simply a passive recipient of the documents. He can claim the intrusion was necessary in pursuit of journalism - and in some jurisdictions (not the UK) that would may even be a valid legal defence - but he was very much engaged in otherwise illegal computer misuse.

Precisely. Attempted, unusuccessfuly.

How illegal is opening fire on a market place full of civilians? Is the crime of randomly killing people worse than the crime of exposing that killing?

I guess you're loving the fact the blackwater contractors were pardoned, eh?

America, Fuck Yeah!

Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!

I really don't know what Assange tried or didn't but, "Attempted, unusuccessfuly" probably covers 99.9999% of all KNOWN crime.

On a side note, maybe I should attempt to rob my bank, as they're successfully robbing me :-/

First World problems == Third World dreams

AFAIK, the attempted attack is still a violation of the law, even if unsuccessful, especially against a DoD target. Attempted Assault is still a crime, as is an Attempted Assault on a computer system.

"It is alleged that ..." not "Assange attempted to ..."

That is part of the potential US case which is yet to be tried.

What's interesting to me is it was found that Assange could have been prosecuted under the GB Official Secrets Act for leaking the US cables ... As he was not a signatory (being an officer of the Crown) to the Official Secrets Act, the information released was not GB state owned material or from GB state owned sources and was sourced from a third party overseas that makes an oddly shaped pill to swallow. Is there an 'information belonging to allies or "friends at the time"' clause in the OSA that allows such an interpretation? Obviously the information within the documents themselves cound not be regarded as UK secret as, even if they contained information pertinant to the UK, they were freely shared in some way with a third party which, by definition, means it is not secret to the UK.

He's not a journalist, just a data dumper.

He dumps everything he gets his hands on, regardless of the damage it does

"He's not a journalist, just a data dumper."

But somebody has to expose, ethically or otherwise. I think just as many hate him as love him and that's not exclusive to journalists. Assange is somewhere between Snowden and The Dread Pirate Roberts... where between I don't know.

The conflict I have is that illegally exposing the truth is still exposing the truth. If only BAD things were exposed, would you care? Of course, I didn't read AND rationalize 250,000 text documents or have the resources to do so, so I can't say one way or the other.

IIUC he liased with governments to ensure that information that could put lives in danger was redacted.

I've said this before on El Reg. and I'll say it again: Assange is an anarchist.

Define 'anarchist'. Do you mean that he just wants to watch the world burn? Or that he is a Bakunin-style anarchist in wanting existing political structures replaced with a grass-roots-originated system that has no leaders but consensus?

He's not an anarchist nor would it matter if he were, whereas the people he exposed were murderers and fucking Trump is now accessory to murder. Which is worse, murder or being a bit of an arse?

Not of itself, no. But journalists are not permitted to commit a crime in order to discover facts for a news report. Not that I am saying that what Assange did was not justified. Sometimes laws are made for the sole purpose of giving governments an advantage and/or allowing them to commit highly immoral and/or criminal acts without the people who voted for them finding out. Breaking an immoral law is still a crime no matter how much you or I may believe that it should not be. Juries should however be specifically told about jury nullification, and the fact that it is perfectly legal for a jury to find a person "not guilty" even if the evidence makes it 100% certain that they broke the law.

Some laws must be defied. Otherwise unjust laws persist.

The UK probably won't deport him after all this. He has two young children with his (British) fiancee, according to the reporting on the BBC. Their right to a family life will mean that a deportation attempt would be almost certain to fail when challenged in court.

And we did prosecute him for the crime he committed here - jumping bail. For which he got the standard term (as noted by several commenters at the time). He's currently being held on remand as the courts deem him a flight risk, based on his previous history of fleeing from the control of the courts.

She is not British. Per media accounts she was born in South Africa and holds Spanish and Swedish nationality. While the sons are almost certainly British Citizens, that's not enough to prevent a deportation order. In addition the deportation must be deemed to be "unduly harsh". Given the family's means and international makeup there's a fair argument to be made they would tolerate it better than most.

Remember the Tories spent much of the last 10 years stripping away any and all protections foreigners might have. If Priti wants him gone he's gone.

Actually since 1983 one of your parents have to be British Citizens (and possibly Indefinite leave to remain but I'm not 100% on that) for you to acquire British nationality by birth, UK doesn't have birthright citizenship

Take note Mr Lynch, threatening suicide is now clearly the way out of extradition to the US.

It's cheaper than paying for an autism diagnosis.

Hillarious.

What do you think Assange's mental state is after 10 years of this?

What would your mental state be after 10 years on the run, knowing the yanks are after you?

I'd rather have the US after me than the Saudis - Jamal Khashoggi wasn't so lucky. It's [1]dangerous work being a journalist.

[1] https://cpj.org/data/killed/2020/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&start_year=2020&end_year=2020&group_by=location

and sadly the 100% got away with it. Governments, vigilantes, hackers, rebels, after a few months, the oil and money wash over it like volcanic ash on Pompeii.

What would your mental state be after 10 years on the run, knowing the yanks are after you?

Probably wishing I'd just owned up in the first place, served my time, and been a free man for 5+ years.

"

... and been a free man for 5+ years.

"

Not in an American court. More likely life in prison - likely to be a short life as well after a conviction that he effectively attacked America.

The maximum sentence is 175 years. Yes, two entire lifetimes.

The US gov clami' that he would [1]'most likely' get 4-6 years. I'm once again reminded of [2]the wisdom of M’andee-rice Davis.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55528241

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies#%22Well_he_would,_wouldn't_he?%22

"What would your mental state be after 10 years on the run, knowing the yanks are after you?"

Self inflicted ? And as a convicted bail jumper does Assange even qualify for a UK visa/residency under the new Australian points based system?

Doesn't this set up an expectation that if Assange were to lose the appeal and then end up being jailed that he would be expected to commit suicide?

Having effectively jailed himself for several years this seems unlikely.

AFAIK there were no moves to prosecute him until the outgoing POTUS arrived in office. Perhaps there will be another change in attitude.

He'll basically be a prisoner here. If he goes to another jurisdiction then all bets are off and he'll probably find himself on a flight to the USA before he knows it.

They (the USA) won't stop until he is locked up for several 100 year sentences in a Federal Supermax.

But... perhaps things will change when the current Tweeter/Traitor in Charger in DC is in prison.

Federal Supermax? I'm doubting his crime would even be considered for a Federal Supermax, He'll end up with the Celebs doing time for cheating their kids into Uni...

If the appeal fails I strongly suspect that something Eichmann-y will happen to him

Agreed: quite possible.

Get to live-it-up in South America* for a couple of decades?

*Probably not Ecuador.

Judge Baraitser also dismissed Assange's legal arguments that publishing stolen US government documents on WikiLeaks was not a crime in the UK, ruling that had he been charged in the UK, he would have been guilty of offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989.

Having been subject to the official secrets act for many of my years (I have signed the form that I understand my responsibilities etc. etc. more times than I care to recall), I could understand a successful prosecution for publishing UK secrets in the UK, but not US secrets (unless they are shared NATO secrets, but I don't recall any of that being the case).

I would appreciate if someone might enlighten me here.

I could understand a successful prosecution for publishing UK secrets in the UK, but not US secrets (unless they are shared NATO secrets, but I don't recall any of that being the case).

I think that may be the case, ie stuff that was published would be covered by the UK OSA. Alternatively, I think part of the extradition test is to consider if the alleged crime is one that would also be considered a crime, if committed in the UK.

But the saga rumbles on. Given all the Clinton stuff Assange published, not convinced the Democrats would be keen on dropping charges. Then again, there may be some potential horse trading given Assange has hinted in the past that he's got more damaging stuff about the Dems.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next with the bail hearing, which will no doubt play on the IT angle and risk that the agent becomes a self-terminating process. Kinda tricky given he's absconded once before, and I think it must be tempting to grant bail & not look too hard if his supporters whisk him out of the country. Oops, sorry America..

Attempting to blackmail the US govt is NOT a bright idea, makes it more likely they find a hole to bury you in than less....

I can see him being declared "persona non grata" in the UK and deported back to Australia, who will likely happily stick on a plane to the USA (thats if he's not put on the flight that goes via the USA)

The full judgement walks through this in some detail - page 33 onwards. What's less well known is that there's a whole "other" side to the OSA dealing with people what are not servants of her majesty attempting to gain documents through nefarious means, and that side applies to "national security documents which might be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy" whether or not they are explicitly marked and indeed whether or not they are specifically British.

However it's also important to stress the purpose of looking at British law isn't to establish criminality - neither Assange nor Manning are British and none of the offences happened in the UK - but to meet a test of "dual criminality". This essentially transposes the actors and offences to British law and tests whether we also have the same crime on the books, to stop the US unilaterally criminalising offences for extradition purposes. Therefore the whole point of the comparison is to pretend, for the moment, that the actions were happening in the UK and with UK secrets, to allow us to compare the consequences of US and UK law to make sure the request is fair.

The leaks included some UK originating data due to joint operations from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe most of the British data was about civilian casualties and torture allegations if I remember correctly.

Having been subject to the official secrets act for many of my years (I have signed the form that I understand my responsibilities etc. etc.

Doesn't matter if you signed the form or not, you're still subject to the provisions of the Act.

>Doesn't matter if you signed the form or not, you're still subject to the provisions of the Act.

This is mostly true. The act as most people encounter it applies to three groups of people. The first are the crown servants - government employees and contractor staff who are directly working for the government. The second group are "government contractors", who are engaged indirectly (e.g. BAE staff building a tank). If you fall outside those first two groups the bulk of the OSA does not apply to you. The third category is why you're made to sign the paper - and it is any person who is notified in writing that they are subject to the terms of the act. Your signature is your acknowledgement that you have been notified so that even if you're not a crown servant or a contractor you are still subject to the act in the same way.

The bits of the OSA in question for this Assange judgement are the "other" bits of the OSA that very much do apply to everyone.

Your signature is your acknowledgement that you have been notified so that even if you're not a crown servant or a contractor you are still subject to the act in the same way.

It's a law, it applies whether or not you sign a bit of paper saying you were notified. Being notified is largely a courtesy.

"Do you have to sign the Official Secrets Act to be bound by it?

It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it. The 1989 Act states that a person can be “notified” that he or she is bound by it; and Government employees will usually be informed via their contract of employment if they must observe the Act."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7422/

Doesn't matter if you signed the form or not, you're still subject to the provisions of the Act. ...... Anonymous Coward

Oh, really? Now there's a novelty.

Indeed so; the key here is that people who are expected to need access to classified information see it all spelled out in gruesome detail and that was my point.

I never saw a clause in the (admittedly short) forms where secret information from another state was necessarily a UK secret. There are occasions when that is true and I have seen such specific occasions but in general the OSA protects UK secrets.

I never saw a clause in the (admittedly short) forms where secret information from another state was necessarily a UK secret. There are occasions when that is true and I have seen such specific occasions but in general the OSA protects UK secrets.

I think it can be pretty common, ie some secrets are shared on the basis that we'll keep a foreigner's secrets secret as well. Which can be odd sometimes, eg training manuals might be openly published in the US, but still classified in the UK. Or situations where not everything is shared, so you might have a thing, but how that thing works is kept in a room only for say, US personnel because those secrets are US-NOFORN.

Judge Baraitser also dismissed Assange's legal arguments that publishing stolen US government documents on WikiLeaks was not a crime in the UK, ruling that had he been charged in the UK, he would have been guilty of offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989. Had his conduct not been a crime in the UK, that would have been a powerful blow against extradition.

Can anyone be charged with sharing secrets one might not know are shared secrets if one has not signed the Official Secrets Act 1911-1989? One presumes Julian Assange has never ever signed such an agreement.

Or even charged with sharing stolen secrets one might know are stolen shared secrets if one has not signed any Official Secrets Act?