Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Anonymous US Law Enforcement Officer Claims US Wouldn't Arrest Julian Assange

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the with-crossed-fingers dept.

United States 399

McGruber writes "The Washington Post reports that 'Federal prosecutors have not filed a sealed indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, despite persistent rumors that a nearly three-year grand jury investigation into him and his organization had secretly led to charges, according to senior law enforcement sources. ... "Nothing has occurred so far," said one law enforcement official with knowledge of the case. "If Assange came to the U.S. today, he would not be arrested. But I can't predict what's going to happen. He might be in six months." The law enforcement official providing this assurance chose to remain anonymous.'"

cancel ×

399 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459473)

The headline is a pretty strained summary of his quote.

Sure... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459487)

We believe you.

Re:Sure... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459883)

They can't actually arrest him since he is an Australian citizen who leaked information from outside of the USA. He is not subject to the laws of the USA. If the US sends people after him outside of the USA, Assange should kill them because once they step foot outside of their borders, they have no authority any more.

Re:Sure... (3, Insightful)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 9 months ago | (#45459911)

Can't is a strong word. Sure, they can, but legally they have tenuous grounds to hold him.

Re:Sure... (4, Insightful)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 9 months ago | (#45459921)

To iterate, what I'm saying is that we can't execute US citizens without a fair trial, yet we've done numerous times in the past few years. So "can't" just doesn't fly. "Not supposed to" is more accurate.

Re:Sure... (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 9 months ago | (#45460025)

So an AC said he will not be arrested. Well that's enough for me.... wait, Julian, what if it's a trap?

Re:Sure... (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 9 months ago | (#45460141)

So an AC said he will not be arrested. Well that's enough for me.... wait, Julian, what if it's a trap?

It's not. Come on down!

Re:Sure... (0)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 9 months ago | (#45460223)

By numerous, you mean four. Only one of them was intentionally targeted (take a wild guess which one). Your notion of numerous and mine are very different.

I don't believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459493)

Lets see if I still believe this after drinking two beers.

youtu.be/ACgJhE2L7Ms?t=44s

Nope

er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459497)

Bull Fucking Shit.

Its A Trap! (3, Insightful)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 9 months ago | (#45459523)

Sounds like a tactic to let the Justice Department be able to say, "He is not facing arrest" without lying.

Plus they problaby have to soften up the journalist community, to get them OK with the idea that Assange is a spy and not a publisher/journalist.

Re:Its A Trap! (3, Informative)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 9 months ago | (#45459997)

An unknown source in the DOJ says that most likely the US won't act in its best interests. Was this person talking to some GOTP's? Because I don't know of anyone over the age of 8 that would believe this tripe.

Re:Its A Trap! (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 9 months ago | (#45460267)

You are apparently a fortunate person. I know people over the age of 20 who would believe this nonsense. They'll believe anything their favorite talking head says to believe.

You think? (1)

Mistakill (965922) | about 9 months ago | (#45460219)

Sounds like a tactic to let the Justice Department be able to say, "He is not facing arrest" without lying.

Plus they problaby have to soften up the journalist community, to get them OK with the idea that Assange is a spy and not a publisher/journalist.

I bet you it'd take about 2 hours or less for them to serve up a warrant... in face, id wager there's one prepared, unsigned, just waiting for the chance for a 'friendly' judge to sign if the situation calls for it

Come on Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459527)

Come on home Julian..... you can trust us.....

Re:Come on Home (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459607)

Come on home Julian..... you can trust us.....

He's not from the US, dipshit.

I could imagine a truth buried behind this (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 9 months ago | (#45459533)

They might not arrest him. They might just shoot him.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45459711)

Key words in your "Subject line": "I could imagine ..."

It is imaginary.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459743)

They might not arrest him. They might just shoot him.

Why is such a stupid comment like the parent modded "insightful"? Paranoid, yes. Insightful, no.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (4, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 9 months ago | (#45459915)

Or detain him indefinitely. Many of the people in Gitmo haven't actually been "arrested" or charged with anything.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (-1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45459965)

That's because they are being held as prisoners of war. There is no need for changes. If you bother to check the US, UK, and other countries held hundreds of thousands of captured soldiers without charges because they are neither needed to hold them or appropriate. They could be separately changed with war crimes while being held until the end of the conflict.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (4, Insightful)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 9 months ago | (#45460023)

Except we have not declared war.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 9 months ago | (#45460091)

You really need to look at the authorizations for force in Afghanistan & Iraq... then look up what generally constitutes an 'declaration of war', as last I checked... neither US law or the Constitution explicitly defines in what form a 'declaration of war' must take... or even if those words must be used.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 9 months ago | (#45460195)

Except we have not declared war.

Technically, we were never at war with any of the countries those people being detained are from. unless you think declaring war on abstract ideas counts.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45460333)

The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress is pretty clear.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. [gpo.gov]

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (2)

DaHat (247651) | about 9 months ago | (#45460077)

No... they are being held as unlawful enemy combatants... there is a difference. Being a POW comes with certain rights under the Geneva Conventions, not so for those down in Gitmo.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 9 months ago | (#45460079)

End of a conflict against a tactic.... be a long wait for that one..
The US has a court system and its still working.... and US law and international treaty obligations are clear, get people before a real court.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 9 months ago | (#45460121)

and US law and international treaty obligations are clear

Have you actually read what the Geneva Conventions have to say about those who fight without uniform [wikipedia.org] , outside of the armed forces of belligerent nation-states? US law [wikipedia.org] has also handled this situation in the recent past, though I'm guessing not in the manner that you'd wish to see.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 9 months ago | (#45460203)

The manner courts would want to see would be something like:
Is the person a goat herd? Picked up for a 'cash' or just making up the 'quota' by another friendly intelligence 'service'.
Picked up for a 'cash' over some local dispute.
Was the person tortured? What does their defence team have to present?
Good lawyers can present their facts and most courts can handled most criminal and legal situations....

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 9 months ago | (#45460243)

Is the person a goat herd? Picked up for a 'cash' or just making up the 'quota' by another friendly intelligence 'service'.

The conventions require a status review be conducted by a "competent tribunal". This was done for everybody in Gitmo, they released a few dozen prisoners during the process, the rest were deemed to be unlawful combatants, who are subject to the domestic laws of the United States, this according to the conventions.

None of this is really new stuff, today we call them terrorists, a few generations ago they were pirates, a long time ago they were barbarians. At the end of the day they're just people who conduct themselves in a manner contrary to the law of nations, and in so doing they forfeit many (not all) of the protections according to those who behave within the confines of the law of nations.

The only difference between today and yesteryear is we're too bogged down in bureaucratic inertia to actually get on with the process, which does everybody a disservice. You've got idiots on the left screaming it's illegal, idiots on the right screaming for summary execution, and idiots in between who are too indecisive to actually apply the law as written and move the process forward.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45460215)

End of a conflict against a tactic.... be a long wait for that one..

The Authorization for Use of Military Force is pretty clear about who the US is at war with. The only puzzling thing is why people keep getting hung up on symbolic language as if it is really confusing. Nobody seems to be confused about who the war was against during the "war against fascism" between 1939-1945, but the "war against terror" from 2001-2013 seems to "baffle" people.

The US has a court system and its still working.... and US law and international treaty obligations are clear, get people before a real court.

Those treaties allow al Qaida members to be held as enemy combatants and tried before military commissions if applicable.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460311)

We didn't have a war on fascism dumbass. We had a war against Japan, and added Germany and Italy to the list shortly afterwards.

Japan was an Imperial Monarchy, and had nothing to do with fascism. Meanwhile Spain's Fascist General Franco was never a target of US military action.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 9 months ago | (#45460277)

No, no, NO! The prisoners in Guantanamo have been denied status as POW's. That special legal fallacy of "enemy combatant" was created specifically to deny those prisoners the legal benefits of either POW's or criminals.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45460307)

To qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions you have to wage war lawfully, it is part of the enforcement mechanism of the treaty. Al Qaida doesn't do so. They are unlawful combatants. They could still be charged with war crimes. And no, it isn't a legal fallacy.

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | about 9 months ago | (#45459929)

They might not arrest him. They might just shoot him.

Since when is wishful thinking +Insightful?

Re:I could imagine a truth buried behind this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459953)

Since it is also insightful.

Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (5, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45459535)

You can't believe a damn thing anyone in law enforcement says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE [youtube.com]
Never could, no point in starting any time soon.
Makes good family viewing. Especially your kids.

Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 9 months ago | (#45459753)

Not true that you never could. It used to be that cops were mostly decent people trying to protect society from bad people. There are still quite a few that are like that. The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so. The brainwashing and hiring tactics are working, because they are getting worse and worse.

Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459889)

The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so.

People being ignorant of history, that is not a new phenomenon.

The policing professions have always been attractive and accessible to the worst kinds of human beings. Asshole cops have always existed.

Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459939)

Well, you posted anonymously, so GP is just going to ignore you and me. I hope that was intentional, I for one am tired of anonymous posters being ignored.

Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459941)

The brainwashing of cops is a relatively new phenomenon, within the last 3 decades or so.

People being ignorant of history, that is not a new phenomenon.

The policing professions have always been attractive and accessible to the worst kinds of human beings. Asshole cops have always existed.

We went from having some asshole cops and mostly good meaning cops to a situation today where most cops are bullies or worse and the few good apples are drowned in the institutional omerta' that reigns in police departments across the country. So hell fucking no, the situation today is nothing like it was 30, 40 or even 50 years ago.
The Police abdicated their role of "peace officers" the moment they went full paramilitary on us. Today they are just as bad as the real criminals. I wouldn't talk to a police officer even if I saw a crime being commited. They might arrest me.

Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (5, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45459969)

My mind goes farther and farther back in time.
When and where are you talking about? They were lying shit in the 70s and I presume the 60s from stories I hear. Beyond that the history books aren't kind either. I guess television always showed fictitious nice cops. I suppose the highway patrolmen touring the elementary school safety circuit are probably nice guys, but, those are the ones they send on tour. I'm fairly loaded with psych case histories and results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory battery of tests of cops over the last 30 years or so in my area. They're fairly simple, power hungry and can have some pretty major deviations and will still be hired. That's the profile you get, here and elsewhere. As long as you're no brainiac, have no record and can read and write,you can be a real nut job and still be a cop fresh out of training and believe me, the majority do. The worst of them trickle down to the podunk towns after and if they get fired from urban areas.
Here in my area of the state, there are 3 separate cases of incarcerating officers sexually assaulting suspects this year alone. There is also a regional rash THIS YEAR of 6 cases of suspects fleeing, jumping in ponds and drowning. Not years previous, just this year.This is a two county area I'm speaking of.
We have two officers up for murder and one, a police trainer, convicted of murdering his wife and committing arson to cover it up. There aren't even a million people here. This is only the headline stuff too. Soooo much more.
It ain't 9-11 anymore, the polish wore off and all we have left is punks with badges all the way up to Federal levels.

Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45460271)

So are you claiming that you have a statistically valid representative sample that you are generalizing from to paint all law enforcement officers across the country as bad? Or are you grinding an axe based on a small sample of aberrant cases and maybe a few unhappy experiences?

Re:Cops Lie, Film @ 11 (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 9 months ago | (#45460329)

Oh, the ponds.

There was a case in Oklahoma several years back. A young black man eluded police until he ran into a pond and drowned. The autopsy stated quite clearly that he drowned to death. Oddly, that drowned young man had some bullet holes in his back. I didn't view the body, so I can't swear that there were holes in his back - but I did talk to a member of his family who did view the body before it was dressed for the funeral.

We screwed up badly when fleeing and evading the police was made into a felony. Quite naturally, a police officer is authorized to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony. If you've done nothing else wrong, just turning a corner to avoid being seen by a cop is reason to be shot to death.

Also (5, Funny)

SB9876 (723368) | about 9 months ago | (#45459539)

The official went on to say that he totally heard that the Justice department has a big basket of puppies waiting in the office to give to Julian [Assange] if he just drops by by next week.

No need (4, Funny)

bob_super (3391281) | about 9 months ago | (#45459549)

You typically don't arrest people after they jump off the curb in front of a bus while being mauled by a pack of attack dogs with polonium teeth. Especially if they previously committed suicide using the safe two-bullet-in-the-head technique and padlocked themselves in a gym bag.

It's just poor taste

Re:No need (1)

McGruber (1417641) | about 9 months ago | (#45460185)

and padlocked themselves in a gym bag.

In case anyone thinks bob_super is making that up: "The death of MI6 spy Gareth Williams, whose body was found in a padlocked sports bag, was probably an accident, police have said." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24927078 [bbc.co.uk]

Why would he be arrested? (5, Insightful)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 9 months ago | (#45459553)

He wouldn't be arrested, they don't have to do that in America anymore - they "detain" you.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (0)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45459577)

And they always used to portray that in movies as happening in "communist" countries to our parents and grandparents.
Feel like a sucker yet?

Re:Why would he be arrested? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45460297)

People get arrested in both free and repressive countries. The difference is the reason, and the likely outcome. In the Soviet Union you could be arrested for making a joke about the national political leadership and go to the Gulag for 10 years. In the US? Not so much. I doubt you have a real handle on repression in communist countries.

The Soviet Story trailer [youtube.com]

Re:Why would he be arrested? (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45459699)

He wouldn't be arrested, they don't have to do that in America anymore - they "detain" you.

If they are going to prosecute him they'll arrest him, especially if he comes to the US.

I've never heard of Assange taking up arms against the US, or funding terrorists, so law of war processing is out. Espionage, maybe.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (3, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 9 months ago | (#45459771)

He does not have to take up arms, look at what they want to charge Snowden with and what they did charge Manning with. All they have to claim is that information published helps the enemy. Last I checked, Manning dumped his information to Wikileaks who dumped it to the public. Assange will get worse than Manning in the way of sentencing, and the precedent is already set for the charges.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (1, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45459809)

He does not have to take up arms, look at what they want to charge Snowden with and what they did charge Manning with

That would be espionage, which was in my second line. If Assage were to come to the US, and was arrested, he would almost certainly be processed through the civilian courts.

Manning was subject the US Uniform Code of Military Justice which allows for a charge of aiding the enemy - Article 104. He was acquitted on that charge.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 9 months ago | (#45459943)

Assange will get worse than Manning in the way of sentencing, and the precedent is already set for the charges.

False. Long standing precedent says that Assange is in the clear, provided that he didn't actively encourage Manning to break the law. Assange had no duty to maintain the confidentiality of classified information, he's essentially in the same legal position as the New York Times when it publishes classified information revealed to it by sources. This is the legal precedent going back at least as far as the Pentagon Papers, and to the best of my knowledge we've never seen a reporter charged (much less convicted) for the publication of classified material.

The only thing that would get him into trouble would be if he actively encouraged Manning to break the law, in that instance he could be facing conspiracy charges. Did he do that? Nobody other than Manning knows for sure. I find it unlikely, since there are folks in Washington who really wanted to get Assange, and it would have made sense for Manning to trade his eventual testimony against him for a reduced sentence, if he had such testimony to offer.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460029)

Guess what happens if (when?) Assange finnaly gets "detained" by the US.

A lawyer shows up in Mannings cell, and offers him a significantly reduced sentence for evidence/testimony.

Just because they haven't reduced his sentence now; doesn't mean they can't offer it for him when they have Assange in hand.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460147)

If they are going to prosecute him they'll arrest him, especially if he comes to the US.

I've never heard of Assange taking up arms against the US, or funding terrorists, so law of war processing is out. Espionage, maybe.

Welcome, you must be new here.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459763)

He wouldn't be arrested, they don't have to do that in America anymore - they "detain" you.

Citation needed. Never heard of a single instance of such thing happening in my 40 years of living in the USA.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (3, Informative)

The Snowman (116231) | about 9 months ago | (#45459863)

He wouldn't be arrested, they don't have to do that in America anymore - they "detain" you.

Citation needed. Never heard of a single instance of such thing happening in my 40 years of living in the USA.

Ever hear of this guy [wikipedia.org] who spent years in jail being tortured before facing charges? He is even a U.S. citizen -- Julian Assange is not.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45459945)

He wouldn't be arrested, they don't have to do that in America anymore - they "detain" you.

Citation needed. Never heard of a single instance of such thing happening in my 40 years of living in the USA.

Ever hear of this guy [wikipedia.org] who spent years in jail being tortured before facing charges? He is even a U.S. citizen -- Julian Assange is not.

Turns out he was arrested. FTA [wikipedia.org] : "Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002"

He was held as an enemy combatant. Under the law at the time no charges would be needed, he would have been a PoW, just like the hundreds of thousands of German and Italian prisoners held in the US without trial. That is the way the law of war works. The US was at war with al Qaida under the authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the Congress - legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

A crucial difference between Padilla and Assange is that Assange has not taken up arms against the US. Padilla did. He was convicted of terrorism related offenses after his case was moved to civilian courts.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 9 months ago | (#45460073)

Under the law at the time no charges would be needed, he would have been a PoW, just like the hundreds of thousands of German and Italian prisoners held in the US without trial.

Close, but not quite the precedent that Padilla was held under. Lawful combatants (the PoWs you alluded to) can be held for the duration of hostilities, but generally can't be charged for having engaged in hostilities prior to their capture. Padilla was an unlawful combatant, the closest analogy from WW2 would be these guys [wikipedia.org] , two of whom were American citizens, yet whom were treated the same as the German nationals who were captured during that aborted sabotage operation.

Re:Why would he be arrested? (2)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 9 months ago | (#45460019)

I guess you've never heard of "stop and frisk" [wikipedia.org] either, but that's totally detaining someone, and for no (legal) reason.

Sure. (1)

The_Star_Child (2660919) | about 9 months ago | (#45459555)

Sure.

he wouldnt be arrested today.. (1)

johnrpenner (40054) | about 9 months ago | (#45459599)

he'd be arrested.. tomorrow. :-p

Secret court is secret (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459639)

If the indictment would be secret, would we know about it? Would the unnamed official know about it? If he or she did, would it be completely "truthful" according to secrecy doctrine to say it had not been filed when it had, in fact, been filed, because it was secret and officially, not only did it not exist in a filed state (or in any state), but he has no knowledge of whether it exists one way or the other?

As A Matter of Fact... (4, Funny)

srobert (4099) | about 9 months ago | (#45459653)

... I heard that Julian Assange has accepted an invitation to speak publicly in New York City's, Central Park on November 30, 2013 at 6:00 PM. I also heard that large numbers of people were going to show up dressed as Julian Assange. Is there any truth to that rumor?

Re:As A Matter of Fact... (1)

horm (2802801) | about 9 months ago | (#45459765)

I am Spartacus.

Not (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45459657)

The only thing they could arrest him on was bribing the guy, er, girl. I was pissed off at Assange, too, but we've been down this road before with the Pentagon Papers, and rightly so.

Lack of indictment diplomatic bargaining chip? (1)

swb (14022) | about 9 months ago | (#45459675)

I wonder if the lack of an indictment or any sworn statement that he will be arrested is some kind of bargaining status diplomatically. Maybe not a very good one, since it doesn't seem likely that the US would NOT try to persecute, I mean, prosecute him if they could.

But perhaps by not indicting him or "officially" promising to arrest him, Ecuador will somehow feel pressure to boot him out of their embassy or at least not feel as interested in letting him stay.

Re:Lack of indictment diplomatic bargaining chip? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 9 months ago | (#45460173)

The US has few options - get the UK to clear to the building - the junta option.
A CIA/NGO backed colour revolution in Ecuador would be useful.
As for the trial - if its open the media gets to report. The US is sure of the optics of a show trial.
A closed trial with cleared lawyers talking in a sealed court room would be bad optics for a person not from the USA without a US security clearance.
I would say a change of EU and South American politics would be the long term US option.
Reduce the embassy cover and let the UK 'move'.
A show trial in the EU for the US creates a political persona not seen since the 1970-80's Soviet Union and their court system.
A security trial in the US creates a political persona not seen since the 1970-80's Soviet Union and their court system.
The only real option for the US is long term trying to make any 'news' aspect go away.

And if you believe this... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#45459677)

I have some beach front property in West Virgina to sell you. Ocean front view and moonshine...

There may not be an formal charge to arrest him right *now* but that could change in a blink of an eye should they find him strolling the streets here in the US of A. But at this point, who cares? He's sitting in some embassy on foreign soil and apart from an act of war there is nothing the USA can do but sit and wait. At least legally that's all they can do. Of course, if he was anyplace but the middle of London, you might have already seen a quick drone strike. I'm sure the CIA has his number and would pull the trigger if he wasn't sitting in an embassy in the middle of a close allie's capital city.

This "unidentified" law enforcement official is either uninformed, stupid, deluded or all three. You KNOW they'd snatch him up if given the chance, if nothing else to "hand him over to the swedes to answer questions". Extraordinary rendition is what would happen, no documentation, one way, no return trips to anywhere.

Exactly.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459687)

The NSA will accidentally have a sniper pop his head off and claim it was urban crime...

The European Official is Clearly Missing Something (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 9 months ago | (#45459693)

Assange is charged with rape in Sweden. I know his supporters love to claim that the charges are fake, but it's not like the Swedish Justice system is widely considered to be corrupt. Hell, they have statements from Swedish women saying he did it. I could believe the CIA faked a video of Assange. But faking people is just not technically possible. Believing the CIA found two (not one, but two) women Assange'd take to his bed, and that both would agree to charge him with rape afterwards, and that neither one of them snitched to the media? That I have trouble with. Especially since to find two you'd have to interview dozens, somebody would probably figure out what was going on, and then she'd have every reason to snitch to the media.

Assange could walk around the US for exactly as long as it took the Swedes to file an extradition request. Since Accused rapist Assange is more useful to the US then freedom fighter convicted on trumped-up charges (and charges would not be a sure thing, given that he didn't do anything inside the US and he isn't a citizen) he would be turned over to the Swedes before US charges could be filed.

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (3, Informative)

sabri (584428) | about 9 months ago | (#45459741)

but it's not like the Swedish Justice system is widely considered to be corrupt. Hell, they have statements from Swedish women saying he did it

I'm not an Assange supporter, but:

The ladies both consented to engage in adult activities. They decided afterwards that Assange allegedly did not agree to their terms and conditions, so they filed charges. It's kind of like a dad borrowing his car to his son saying "you can't go faster than 65mph" and then filing theft charges if he finds out that the kid drove 80mph on the freeway. The Swedish systems allows for this, so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (2)

able1234au (995975) | about 9 months ago | (#45459795)

And one of the girls had connections with the CIA anyway. Also, Assange is not actually charged with anything. They just want to "question" him but refuse to question him in London but wanted to take him back to Sweden. Also, the Swedish prosecutors didn't go after him, and later did go after him, with the suggestion that they changed their mind after a word in their ears from the U.S. He has good reason to be paranoid.

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 9 months ago | (#45459873)

As I recall, one of the ladies had consensual sex while insisting that Assange use a condom, and then woke up later that night to find Assange having sex with her without a condom. She had not consented to unprotected sex, which means it was unconsensual (i.e. rape). That is NOT "deciding afterwards that Assange allegedly did not agree to their terms and conditions".

The Swedish systems allows for this, so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.

Why does that matter? He broke Swedish law while in Sweden. Who gives a shit what the US laws on the topic say?

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459895)

No, that's not rape. Maybe Sweden defines it that way (I don't know) but everywhere else that wouldn't meet the definition of rape, which usually has to involve coercion or threat of violence, which this did not. So yes, while Swedish law gets the last word here, you can't go around singlehandedly re-defining rape just because one jurisdiction has a very puritanical view of "rape".

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 9 months ago | (#45459993)

In New York State his alleged action would be Rape in the 3rd Degree:

S 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent.

1. Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim.

2. Lack of consent results from:

(a) Forcible compulsion; or
(b) Incapacity to consent; or
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching, any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor's conduct; or
(d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.25, or criminal sexual act in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time of the act of intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct, the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have understood such person's words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances.

S 130.25 Rape in the third degree.

A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:

1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;
2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or
3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person`s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460017)

Julian, is that you? A rape is a rape. Non-consensual sex. There is no such thing as "rape", except for rapists. Doesn't matter if there was consensual sex before. This is clear for everybody.

Re:The European Official is Clearly Missing Someth (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | about 9 months ago | (#45459901)

so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.

And your point would be... what?

In the unlikely event (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 9 months ago | (#45459703)

In the unlikely event that Mr Assange gets himself out of the Ecuadoran embassy and to the United States without being arrested by UK police, and the US border authorities did not immediately detain him, and US did not indict him on some charge of their own, then he would still be arrested shortly afterward. The Swedish authorities would have started extradition proceedings with the US the moment they got wind of Assange leaving the UK.

Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459707)

'Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to the Fly.

Finally, some reliable assurances.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459713)

..cause I have been jonesing hard for some Wendy's!

J.A.

Land of the Free (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 9 months ago | (#45459717)

The Land of the Free does not arrest people. It invites them to a holiday island to play a game of heretics and inquisitors.

Re:Land of the Free (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 9 months ago | (#45459905)

so, they won't arrest him, but they might put him on a big scale and weigh him against a rather large duck.

I see.

anonymous source? (1)

LavouraArcaica (2012798) | about 9 months ago | (#45459729)

So the source used wikileaks to remain anonymous? heh

Doesn't cover US officials refusing to comment (1)

leftie (667677) | about 9 months ago | (#45459731)

Obama simply refuses to admit on the record Assange or Snowden has been arrested. Refuse to say anything to the press but "No comment" about it.

Like the US Gov't has handled questions about Israel's nuclear weapon arsenal for 4 decades.

Uh huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459767)

Let me just be the first to say...

Bull-motherfucking-shit.

Pretty worthless statement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459775)

If Assange came to the U.S. today, he would not be arrested. But I can't predict what's going to happen.

If he went to the US today - something we know practically won't happen - he supposedly wouldn't be arrested. Anytime after this he may well be arrested. So for all practical purposes, he may still be arrested.

Anonymous Source Says Turn Yourselves In (2)

retroworks (652802) | about 9 months ago | (#45459813)

Breaking news, here on /.

Federal officials have anonymously granted immunity to all who confess here (No Anonymous Cowards!) to drunken driving, porn viewing, shoplifting, debauchery, and hacking.

Dudes, for real, turn yourselves in. Totally cool. Totally. Listen... C'mon. It's cool.

and if you believe that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459819)

the u.s. government also has free health care and retirement plan for everyone.

The cake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459875)

The cake is a lie.

No, They Wouldn't Arrest Him.. (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about 9 months ago | (#45459909)

That would imply some human rights would need to be honored. I imagine he would be indefinitely detained.

Hi! I'm an anonymous source... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459979)

...everything is just fine. On another note aliens walk among us.
Believe me it's true.

Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45459987)

The US government has a history of telling lies. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They never existed. Iraq soldiers taking babies out of incubators and letting them die. Never happened. Prisioners not being tortured in Guantanamo bay. Yeah right. And this is now to be believed?

There is no story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460049)

It's an anonymous source who's obviously speaking only for himself.

Just another excuse for the Slashdot daily quota of Snowden/Assange/Swartz/NSA stories. What happened to the technology site that used to be here? Yeah I know, that was back in 2002 or something.

Yeah - right, think we believe you? (0)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#45460065)

This is just deniable misinformation. Unless somebody with some authority says it on the record and with their reputation on the line this is worthless.

Yuh huh... (1)

CliffH (64518) | about 9 months ago | (#45460097)

"You're that clever shark, aren't you?"
"Just a dolphin mam..."

An anonymous officer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460177)

Sounds more like an anonymous coward.

Why on earth would he go there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460209)

I mean, except for fulfilling some child dream of going to Disneyland...

not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45460233)

The law enforcement official providing this assurance chose to remain anonymous.

The guy saying this is quite literally a nobody. He's merely making a conjecture off the top of his head. There's no story here - If I were to say "Assange would be shot down in cold blood as soon as he set foot on American soil," would that be a newsworthy story? Not really. Neither of us has any more idea than the other what would happen. This guy's some random twit, the source reporting it is just publishing filler, and Slashdot proves their irrelevance by even linking such a pointless bit of non-story.

Nothing to see here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>