Cuffing Assange a 'priority' for the USA says attorney-general

The first amendment generally shields those who publish in the US, and Wikileaks is not a US organization in any case.

Doesn't the latter contradict the former, even if we for a moment consider them publishers rather than malicious hackers with a publicity front end?

That said, you're only focusing on the US in itself. If WL is not a publisher in the press sense (which it isn't due to a clear lack of neutrality), it reverts to being a publisher/doxxer for malicious ends - in other words, a criminal outfit that pretends to do good to evade the law. IMHO it became WL only to give a more glossy flag for Assange's past hacking activities, and with its clear partisan activities during the US election it has pretty much burned that flag.

I also have a feeling that some people will assume any kind of fair process for Assange ("fair" as in convicting him for deeds with evidence as opposed to deciding the outcome upfront. IMHO the outcome ought to be identical, but only one path is actually proper due process). Don't forget, this is now a country with a rigged Supreme Court, and a president absolutely desperate to divert the attention from his connections with less savoury countries and outfits, and he appears to think that biting the hands that fed him (sorry El Reg :) ) will do the trick. Hence the attack on Syria and, now that is in a media lul, addressing Assange's "assistance".

You're not dealing with a legal system here, you're dealing with one man who is still allowed to act as if the rules don't apply to him (pretty much like Assange tried under the false flag of being a "reporter") and to keep him in place, his cronies will bend any rule that has even the smallest amount of flex in it or simply replace the bothersome ones.

That said, a rule bender mauling a rule bender ought to make for interesting television. Buy your popcorn now.

I wonder if that is it: that Manning agreed to assist in exchange for release from custody. She certainly has a personal reason to want to see Saint Jules in chokey and not just because he still owes her $35,000 of the $50,000 he promised.

Still, looking forward to hearing AC/DC blasted out at maximum volume outside the Ecuadorian Embassy until they hand over Assange.

Theft (pwerhaps) about illegal activities

Is theft (alleged) that uncovers constitutionally illegal/unlawful activity even a crime ???

Re: Truth

Truth

is enemy number one

For a second here, I did read it as:

Trump

is enemy number one

Re: Leeks

In Welsh, the word for a well known orange vegetable is 'moron'...

Re: El Reg - can you stop reporting on this cockwomble?

If the US make no attempt to arrest/hold Assange, what happens to Assanges credability?

Re: El Reg - can you stop reporting on this cockwomble?

@Richard12 That's fine for Trump. But what about Assange ?

"The government has detained me without charge for seven years"

He has detained himself and is completely free to leave at any time. The government don't charge anyone they aren't part of that process, that is left to law enforcers and the judiciary. I'm pretty sure there is a charge against him, there is definitely an arrest warrant which will immediately lead to a charge in court of skipping bail. He is bang to rights for skippings bail and has never denied it, so likely to be proven guilty.

You can't use a conspiracy theory against another country to evade facing the law on for something you are guilty of in the UK.

I do rather wish he would step outside the embassy door, so he can find out what detention really feels like.

"Curious how Assange thinks the UK government is detaining him."

Especially as he isn't even in within UK jurisdiction.

Re: Ah, yes, I nearly forgot about him

Well, more to worry about, because now it's clear that WL is not a press outfit (it lacks a certain je-sais-quoi, namely neutrality)

And you count the Daily Mail and Fox News as press outfits because off what?

Re: Administrations go after leakers

Usually it takes a few years to have big misdeeds you want to keep covered up.

That's because most administrations don't start with something to hide..

Re: Administrations go after leakers

So far, the administration preceding the present one has an enormous lead in prosecuting leakers, as against whining about them. It also is the clear leader (off topic here) in deportations, and at least one article reported a year on year decline in deportations for the first full month of the present administration, despite the great agitation about the Muslim bans that actually were not bans and applied to about 10% of all Muslims.

We often get wound up in current discontents to the point of losing all reason and context. Trump will pass, as all earlier presidents have done, and most likely without doing major permanent damage.

Re: Why would he go after Assange?

Well the USA has traditionally had a rather novel approach to debt. Namely, if you can invade / overthrow / imprison the person you owe money to, you don't have to pay them. (Libya springs to mind).

Re: Deportation

Not initially. He has some custodial time to serve in the UK first for his undisputed crime of absconding from bail and not attending his court hearing.