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

United States attorney-general Jeff Sessions says the Trump administration will make it “a priority” to arrest leakers, including Julian Assange. Sessions on Thursday toured the US/Mexico border and later gave a press conference in El Paso. Towards the end of that conference, at about the 15:40 mark of the video below, …

  1. tom dial Silver badge

    Wikileaks probably is in the clear for the DNC and Clinton campaign leaks unless it can be proved that Wikileaks members participated in the various activities that resulted in their acquiring them. The first amendment generally shields those who publish in the US, and Wikileaks is not a US organization in any case. I am not aware that anyone has been charged in connection with publication of the material Snowden took from NSA despite the fact that much of it undoubtedly remains classified.

    It is not so clear in the case of the Manning materials, since there have been claims that Julian Assange or others associated with Wikileaks may have participated in their theft. What I recall seeing, however, is that they might have provided technical advice about transfer to them or a destination to which Manning should deliver it, and that probably does not rise to culpability in taking it unlawfully from its repository. There might be an indictment, and following that a request for extradition. If Assange or others were extradited, it could be quite hard to convict them if they have a competent lawyer unless Manning helps the prosecution rather a lot.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        No contradiction in that. Wikileaks is not a US organization, nor has it, so far as I am aware, any meaningful US presence. Aside from the fact that its publication activities would not be legitimately subject to prosecution if they occurred in the US, that lack of US presence provides additional shielding for their activities, whether or not they are to be considered reprehensible.

        "Lack of neutrality" has absolutely nothing to do with the standing of either an organization or a person as "the press." Breitbart and The Intercept (and the New Yorker and New York Times and Fox) plainly are not neutral, yet have all the immunities of "the press."

    2. macjules

      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.

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

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

        LOL, "Highway to hell" - I like it :)

      2. Sam 15

        AC/DC blasting Out

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

        It's right next to Harrods!

        I rather think the neighbours might object.

        1. macjules

          Re: AC/DC blasting Out

          Give or take 300 yards I am one of those neighbours. I am so looking forwards Thunderstruck being belted out at Noriega levels in Knightsbridge.

          1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
            Pint

            Re: AC/DC blasting Out

            Give or take 300 yards I am one of those neighbours

            Good. Keep an eye on him for us, thanks.

            I'll come and get you for a beer next time I'm in London :).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 - 18 U.S.C. Ch. 37

      > The first amendment generally shields those who publish in the US

      It does not.

      The U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 is so broadly worded that charges can be brought under this Act against anyone, for publishing classified material, regardless of how this material was obatined, and regardless of whether or not the publisher is a bona fide press organization claiming protection under the First Amendment.

      > I am not aware that anyone has been charged in connection with publication of the material Snowden took from NSA

      Edward Snowden was charged with espionage by the Obama Administration Department of Justice, under the US Espionage Act of 1917.

      For more details about how the Espionage Act works, and how it was used in the past, there's a Wikipedia entry.

      1. NeilPost Silver badge

        Re: U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 - 18 U.S.C. Ch. 37

        Classified, but constitutionally unlawful material. Hmm.....................

    4. NeilPost Silver badge

      Theft (pwerhaps) about illegal activities

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

  2. Ole Juul

    Truth

    is enemy number one

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Truth

      Truth

      is enemy number one

      For a second here, I did read it as:

      Trump

      is enemy number one

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Truth

        Works both ways, depending on whether you are Trump or not...

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Leeks

    Mae oedran y idiot

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Leeks

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

  4. Richard 12 Silver badge

    El Reg - can you stop reporting on this cockwomble?

    The idiot lives for publicity.

    Ignore him and eventually he'll get bored and stop running from the law, face his rape allegation, be convicted or not, and then he can go to prison for jumping bail.

    Detention isn't deliberately self imposed and doesn't offer access to Twitter.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

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

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

        That hasn't made a difference over the 7 years he's been feeding that myth. Those blinded by Assange's BS will continue to believe the Messiah no matter what, and those who saw through that from day one don't have any reason to change their position either, and never the mane shall tweet..

    2. Adrian 4

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

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

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Curious how Assange thinks the UK government is detaining him.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "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.

    3. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

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

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

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

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

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ah, yes, I nearly forgot about him

    Leaving Assange to dig his own hole was an intelligent decision, so it stands to reason that that approach will no longer be followed.

    Add to that that Trump is so desperate to bury any affiliations that he's apparently even considering starting a war with North Korea and yes, I think St Jules™ and Ass do have something to worry about.

    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) they have reverted in status to what they have always been, hackers. Even that diversionary tactic no longer works. Past deeds are becoming due too.

    He may even have to wash..

    1. BebopWeBop

      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?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ah, yes, I nearly forgot about him

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

        Touché, although they never pretended to be anything else, or act for the good of humanity.

        You can also sue them for getting it wrong. Ejecting misbehaving staff is a bit harder if we, for instance, look at Bill O'Reilly's career, but then again, the BBC had Jimmy Saville :).

        If you ask WL to be accountable they either hide or threaten with more hacking.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: Ah, yes, I nearly forgot about him

          >>Touché, although they never pretended to be anything else, or act for the good of humanity.

          Yes they do. SInce when do Daily Mail or Fox News preceded their outpourings with "but keep in mind we're biased." Ditto for pretty much any news outlet that isn't purely focused on a financial audience (who care more about information than being told what is right or wrong).

          If your criteria for being a journalist or a news organization is being unbiased, you're going to have to discount the vast majority. So either change your criteria or accept that it doesn't single out Julian Assange how you'd like.

          Really, what should matter is if what Wikileaks publishes is true, which it is the case is it not?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ah, yes, I nearly forgot about him

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

        Not committing actual crimes to have something to report on? Hmm, no, given the News of the World intercept scandal that doesn't 100% work either, but at least it's not a default.

    2. PNGuinn
      Boffin

      Re: Ah, yes, I nearly forgot about him

      What's all this guff about press outfits being neutral?

      Either you or me are living in some sort of infinitely improbable universe.

      What's the probability of one of us finding out who's the lucky bastard?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Administrations go after leakers

    With a ferocity in proportion to the amount of illegal and unethical actions they want to hide. It is a bad sign for a new administration to go after leakers before their first 100 days are up. Usually it takes a few years to have big misdeeds you want to keep covered up.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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..

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Administrations go after leakers

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

        Seems like a strange assumption to make.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Administrations go after leakers

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

          Seems like a strange assumption to make.

          Oh hello, welcome back to the world. It must look strange to you after so many years in a cave. We now have a UK PM that wasn't voted for but has at least continued in the age old tradition of the self-beneficial U turn (as she called the early election she was positively never going to do), and we have someone manning the top seat in the US who by all accounts is under so many investigations already (yes, even before he was 100 days in the job) that it's a question how both FBI and DoJ have time for anything else, and the core question there is just how much money the US people will be able to claw back after they find out just how fast he's been stuffing his pockets, given that he has plenty foreign assets and owes quite a bit of money to foreign banks.

          Have a look around. We now have a thing called the Internet, but without having to bother with screechy modems (the screeching is now mainly done by so-called "fake news" outfits), and with a bit of common sense (I hope you didn't leave that behind when you vacated your cave) you should be able to form yourself a picture of just what a fantastic mess we got ourselves in.

          We also have a thing called Global Warming, and despite a number of people denying it is happening I'd still advise you that you learn how to swim while you can, and go and live somewhere at least 100m above sea level. Just in case.

          Enjoy, and make sure you apply sun screen.

          1. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: Administrations go after leakers

            So just so I understand your position.

            1) You hate the Prime Minister because she wasn't the leader of her party at the last election.

            2) You hate the Prime Minister because she has called an election.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Administrations go after leakers

              So just so I understand your position.

              1) You hate the Prime Minister because she wasn't the leader of her party at the last election.

              2) You hate the Prime Minister because she has called an election.

              No, no, you make it too complicated. I'm just not terribly impressed by Theresa May. It's not "hate", though, that word is overused in my opinion. It's merely "dislike".

          2. phuzz Silver badge
            Headmaster

            Re: Administrations go after leakers

            Half of all the Prime Ministers in the UK in the last hundred years have entered office without being elected. Src: https://fullfact.org/news/unelected-prime-ministers-common-or-not/

            Really, most of us don't ever elect Prime Ministers. We vote for a Member of Parliament for our constituency, and whichever party holds the most seats (or can form a coalition) then picks one of their MPs to be PM. So unless you lived in Witney and voted for Cameron, you never voted for him as PM (for example).

            If you want to vote directly for your country's leader, then you're going to have to go somewhere else I'm afraid.

            (This does give rise to the possibility that the tories could win almost every seat in the UK, but if May didn't win in her constituency, then she could not be PM. As far as I know, this has never happened yet)

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Administrations go after leakers

            "We now have a UK PM that wasn't voted for"

            Oddly enough, I've never voted for a PM. Just like the vast majority of the UK population. That's now it works in the UK. We don't do presidential elections here. I do wish people would stop trotting out that tired old line.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Administrations go after leakers

            > Oh hello, welcome back to the world. [...]

            You seem to have seriously misunderstood my point.

            My point is that sure, the current US administration is obviously dodgy... but that doesn't mean the previous one's were squeaky clean from the start either.

            As far as I can see, in the last several decades they've all been rotten... it's just a matter of degree.

          5. Lars Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Administrations go after leakers

            "Global Warming, and despite a number of people denying it". Lets add Sessins and some fun to it like here, at 11:39

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY

    2. tom dial Silver badge

      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.

  8. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Why would he go after Assange?

    Trump probably owes him the election result.

    1. h4rm0ny

      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).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why would he go after Assange?

        Namely, if you can invade / overthrow / imprison the person you owe money to, you don't have to pay them. (Libya springs to mind).

        "Invading a person" (Assange springs to mind)

        Sorry, that was too obvious to leave be on a Friday :)

      2. Stevie

        Re: novel approach to debt.

        I think if you pry into the first quarter of the second century of Great Britain as an Empire nation you might also find some pretty nasty ideas on the subject too.

        Young empires are built on agression. They mature into tolerance, then fall apart either through apathy or the inabililty of the infrastructure to deal with a wide-reaching catastrophe. Charlemagne died and his empire was pulled apart by his kids. Comms lag did for the Romans. In a way it did for us British too, though complacency was a big factor.

        And though I live in the USA and will probably die here, I still harbour a secret wish that Britannia would find some way of rising ascendant again to become a world leader in some tangible way other than by weight of history, though how that can be acheived via Brexit is a bit of a puzzler I have to admit.

  9. Julian Bond
    Black Helicopters

    Deportation

    So absolutely no chance of being deported to the USA (via Uzbekistan) the moment he steps outside the embassy, then.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Deportation

        "his undisputed crime of absconding from bail and not attending his court hearing."

        First offence - an hour in the court cells before appearing in front of the beak and being told not to do it again.

        And that's based on _my_ experience of observing magistrates courts dealing with a _repeat_ bail breach offender with a long prison history for ABH.

        Anything else would be a slamdunk appeal as outside the guidelines for a first offence.

    2. Velv
      FAIL

      Re: Deportation

      If he'd gone to Sweden when asked and had been found guilty, he would probably be out and free by now, and beyond the easy legal grab of the Merkins.

      But no, his publicity is more important than the truth.

      1. Steve Evans

        Re: Deportation

        He, probably quite rightly, feared that the moment he was in the custody of any country, he was likely to find himself on a plane to the USA either before or after the sentence.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Deportation

          "He, probably quite rightly, feared that the moment he was in the custody of any country, he was likely to find himself on a plane to the USA either before or after the sentence."

          Please explain to me in a little more detail how this works.

          Remember that your explanation needs to take into cover the fact that he was in custody in the UK then he was released on bail and wasn't, at any moment between being taken into custody and skipping bail, put on a plane to the US.

      2. NeilPost Silver badge

        Re: Deportation

        The Swedish prosecutor Ingrid Isgren eventually came and interviewed him in the embassy. I don;t remember hearing and outcome/output form that in December last year. I think there was a 19 page statement releases by Assange too to the internet.

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. Winkypop Silver badge
    Trollface

    Double bunks?

    Julian might find Kim Jong-un moving in as well soon.

    Sleep-over!

  12. gnasher729 Silver badge

    Assange may have made a very, very big tactical mistake.

    A few years ago, there was no extradition request from the USA to Sweden, and I don't think there would have been one. Assange could have gone to court, may have gone free, may have spent some short time in a comfortable jail, and gone home to Australia. Instead he broke his bail conditions, so now the UK wants him, Sweden still wants him, the time he spent voluntarily in Ecuador's embassy doesn't count for anything, and he managed to draw things out until the USA has a different president who might ask for extradition.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Assange may have made a very, very big tactical mistake.

      He actually made a whole series of them, starting with not wanting to use a condom despite being explicitly asked to. If he had been able to contain himself (sorry, I need a moment to recover from the sudden mental image there) he would have been happily ensconced in Sweden, extolling the virtues of the place instead of having to make up BS stories about it being the slavish servant of the US in matters extradition and abusing the asylum process to hide from the very investigation that could have cleared his name if circumstances were anywhere near what he claimed them to be.

      His predicament and subsequent further digging of that hole is 100% of his own making.

      The only saving grace for him now is that the US *is* indeed looking at getting him shipped over, thus suddenly validating a claim that had been an utter fabrication until now. That said, it's now the Trump administration, so such stupidity ought to be expected. The only upshot of this could be that Assange may finally become the martyr he wants to be, but this time with all the disadvantages he was desperate to avoid, such as incarceration.

  13. Rich 11

    Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

    Should I run in the UK general election? The government has detained me without charge for seven years

    100% - No. We already have enough arrogant and obnoxious people in Parliament.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

      Rule number 1: No poofters!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

        "Rule number 1: No poofters!"

        Wouldn't he have to change his name to "Bruce" as well?

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

        "Rule number 1: No poofters!"

        Sadly, it seems many didn't get the comedy reference.

    2. Chris Miller

      Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

      Technically, a Commonwealth citizen is able to stand as a candidate - I can't remember the last time this happened, though. It's usual, though not legally required, for an MP to reside in their constituency.

      1. SolidSquid

        Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

        Also he'd have trouble doing any of the usual duties an MP has, like running surgeries where constituents can bring their problems to him, when he can't leave the embassy. Being an MP wouldn't prevent his arrest or even his extradition as far as I'm aware

        1. SkippyBing

          Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

          'Being an MP wouldn't prevent his arrest or even his extradition as far as I'm aware'

          I believe being wanted for arrest does scupper your ability to stand as a candidate though.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

            Being "unlawfully at large" is a disqualification, and a nicer way of phrasing it than i would have come up with

        2. PNGuinn
          Flame

          Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

          "Also he'd have trouble doing any of the usual duties an MP"

          Since when has that stopped any of 'em in the past??

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

          Being an MP wouldn't prevent his arrest or even his extradition as far as I'm aware

          But at least he could put it all on expenses. Just reclaim it as a really long taxi ride - AFAIK, Ken Livingstone was allowed to run up quite a bill in that area despite being "Mr Public Transport" to the outside. Just don't tag the expense as a duck house..

          1. PNGuinn
            Go

            Just don't tag the expense as a duck house..

            I wonder what a creative type could put a long holiday in <ahem> fact finding tour of the Ecuadorian Embassy as?

            Ker -Ching!

      2. Richard 26

        Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

        According to the parliament site: "A citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK".

        So he might be eligible but more likely he is on a visa, which would have expired by now.

    3. Alister
      Joke

      Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

      Technically, he isn't in the UK, he's in Ecuador...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

        Technically, he isn't in the UK, he's in Ecuador...

        Well, minus the tan :)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is an Australian even allowed to run for Parliament?

        A joke yes, but a common misconception.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange is not a "leaker"; he's a "leakee"

    He may be an egocentric jerk, but legally he's no more a criminal than any journalist. He never swore allegiance to the US or signed the US equivalent of the official secrets act, as far as I know.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Assange is not a "leaker"; he's a "leakee"

      He may be an egocentric jerk, but legally he's no more a criminal than any journalist. He never swore allegiance to the US or signed the US equivalent of the official secrets act, as far as I know.

      You don't have to in order to commit a crime. Gaining access to computer systems without permission of the owner is a crime in most countries in the world, ditto for being an accessory to it (and in some countries also for seeking instigate it, but that's not universal). The US is not the only country where Assange & friends have been dabbling, and as he portrays himself as a wannabee Robin Hood leader of criminals he has pretty much set himself up for consequences to go with that - the whole "public good" thing was just a smoke screen to somehow legitimise those activities.

      The problem: as soon as those activities were no longer neutral, the smoke cleared too. Uh oh..

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Assange is not a "leaker"; he's a "leakee"

        @AC - and so we are going to see the NSA and GCHQ in the dock for their criminal activities when, exactly?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Assange is not a "leaker"; he's a "leakee"

          @AC - and so we are going to see the NSA and GCHQ in the dock for their criminal activities when, exactly?

          Ah, but there is a difference. Both have mandate to monitor communications so they're technically not engaging in illegal activities in their country of residence and usually have a collaborative mandate from other nations they operate in.

          Where you are correct is the fact that both have been found to wander well over the borders of that mandate, and suffered no consequences. In GCHQ's case, the government simply retrospectively changed the law, in the NSA's case it merely lead to some embarrassment. It should have led to jail time or at least convictions for some, but both UK and US governments missed the opportunity to clean house and so improve trust. That sent two signals:

          1 - these agencies are now officially above the law (or out of control, both apply);

          2 - pesky laws don't apply to government, so a default position of "no trust" is the right approach.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Assange is not a "leaker"; he's a "leakee"

      Assange is not a "leaker"

      Rumour has it that there are two Swedish girls who may have a different opinion..

      :)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Assange is not a "leaker"; he's a "leakee"

      last time I looked, skipping bail is an offence ....

    4. Ben Tasker

      Re: Assange is not a "leaker"; he's a "leakee"

      > but legally he's no more a criminal than any journalist

      Actually, he is. He has a conviction and a criminal record from his Mendax days. Not all Journalists have a criminal record, so your statement is incorrect

      I know that's not the point you were making, but you're wrong so I thought I'd point it out for you.

  15. PNGuinn
    Facepalm

    Official Secrets Act

    "Signing" the OFA is utterly meanlingless.

    You get a dirty dogeared card shoved in front of you with one tiny verselet of the act.

    You're asked to read it, in front of some human resorces dweeb, and sign a bit of paper to say that you've done so.

    You never get to see the bloody act, let alone get given a copy. You're none the wiser.

    Anyways, we're ALL bound by the act, regardless of whether we've read or signed it.

    Just security theatre.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Official Secrets Act

      OFA?

      Ah, OSA you mean. The only reason they make you sign it is because it acts as both a reminder and as extra evidence that you are well aware of the protected nature of what you're handling, and any culpability will thus be easier to prove if it comes to that. Not that "Ich habe es nicht gewußt" hasn't worked since the Nuremberg trails, but some still try it on.

      If you live in the UK or have worked for government entities there you are automatically under the OSA, signature or not. Making you sign it is more an assurance process.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Official Secrets Act

      ""Signing" the OFA is utterly meanlingless..."

      This isn't entirely true. It's practically true in most cases, but the idea that it's "utterly meaningless" is verging on urban myth. The Act itself mostly deals with three classes of persons: Crown Servants, Government Contractors and anyone who has been "notified" that they are subject to the act. The law still applies to everyone else who has access to protected information, but the conditions, penalties and crimes are different for those who aren't one of these 3 classes (Section 5).

      It's therefore common practise to get everyone to sign the act (or rather usually some summary of Section 12) to ensure that if by some absurd legal coincidence you've fallen outside of both categories while working for government you are still covered by the notification. Your signature serves to record that notification for elimination of ambiguity.

      That's also why it's common to sign it twice. Notifying you once on the way in that you are now subject to the OSA as a current staff member, and once on the way out that you're *still* subject to it even though you've left.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Official Secrets Act

      Anyways, we're ALL bound by the act, regardless of whether we've read or signed it. Just security theatre.

      It's not theatrical if you subsequently commit espionage or an act of gross negligence and lose some important information. It results in a longer jail term. It means you cannot plead ignorance in mitigation of a sentence. Having signed that piece of paper, by definition one's deliberate or negligent act was carried out with full intent and full knowledge of the damage one was doing.

      To my knowledge this has resulted in at least one case of supreme stupidity and carelessness resulting in prison time. It was reported in the press at the time.

      Journalists don't sign it, yet they occasionally handle classified material (e.g. documents left on a train and handed to the Sun by a well meaning member of the public for safe keeping / £500). The front cover carries all sorts of dire warnings which the journalist and the member of the public have almost certainly read, and have almost certainly broken the OSA in some way or other (e.g. by opening and reading the document). Yet AFAIK it's always thus far been deemed to not be in the Public Interest to prosecute said member of the public and press, so long as they don't actually publish the content. The horse bolted and the stable door became meaningless when the idiot left it on the train in the first place.

      There are currently moves to update the OSA, I've read that they're trying to make it apply more heavily to journalist and the press, but AFAIK all attempts at a formulation of words along those lines have run into difficulties with compatibility with other laws about civil liberties, etc. Now we have a general election I imagine the whole thing will be quietly forgotten at the status quo remains.

  16. wolfetone Silver badge

    Careful people

    Yes Assange is a bollocks, but people like him let us all know what goes on behind closed doors. Doors we're not meant to know about, yet affect us all.

    You arrest him, you make it harder for those who want to whistleblow to do so. Unless, of course, you want to live in La La Land and play with Barney the Dinosaur instead of knowing what's really going on.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Careful people

      No, people like Assange just use "whistleblowing" as an excuse for malicious activity and make it far more dangerous for whistleblowers to speak out as they will be associated with the grubby activities of Assange & crew.

      The likes of Snowden and, to some degree, Manning (although he was talked into it as an Assange proxy) are what whistleblowing is about. In my opinion, Snowden provided too much data but it was at least laying bare real issues without taking any political sides.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        Re: Careful people

        If you blow the whistle on something, and no one is around to hear it, did you still blow the whistle?

        If you didn't see what Snowden, Manning and Seth Rich (RIP) produced via tabloid newspapers (Snowden) or websites like Wikileaks then you wouldn't even know anything took place.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Careful people

          Don't worry. If Wikileaks wasn't around the Daily Fail and Fox News would keep us informed of what the state criminals were up to.

          Not.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So the CIA wants to get someone but the target is too high profile for them to accidentally fall down the stairs and and shoot themselves between the eyes while cleaning their gun (curious as they don't own one) and neatly zip themselves up in a holdall at the bottom of the stairs, so what do you do ?

    Let's do a good old fashioned sexual smear to demonise them, put them in clink for a bit elsewhere, then when they are no longer paranoid we are after them, snatch them off to the street and give them a one way ticket to the US. A quick show trial with a guaranteed guilty verdict followed by a sentence of life plus 100 years.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "So the CIA wants to get someone but the target is too high profile for them" etc.

      Is this the plot for your new novel that you've accidentally leaked online?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let's do a good old fashioned sexual smear to demonise them

    Luckily for them, they didn't have to. Assange did that all by himself. Nobody seems to care much for the true victims in this, by the way, which I find both remarkable and depressing. Rape is not a joke.

    1. Adrian 4

      Allegedly.

      The point is, nobody really believes the swedish story. It appeared far too conveniently and hasn't been handled the way any reasonable police force without a political motive would have handled it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        It appeared far too conveniently and hasn't been handled the way any reasonable police force without a political motive would have handled it.

        You've never been near a police proces or rape case, have you? The idea of controlled linear progression is an illusion that you can only keep up in fictional TV series where DNA results take a few minutes and a single partial fingerprint is enough to uniquely identify someone who happened to already exist in a database without flagging up hundreds of duplicate matches.

        The only structure is the methodology of the people doing the investigation, but clues don't come at convenient intervals to further the plot.

        To rotate back to the actual story, Assange had plenty of time to stop things turn to rape charges. Given that he already had legal advice he must have been aware of the consequences of his actions, which appears to suggest he knew something that made those consequences minor by comparison.

        I'm just guessing here, but if I add up Assange's alleged habits, the absence of protection, the delay in the events and the fact that the girls suddenly asked him via the police to be tested, I end up with a suspicion that we're talking about an STD detection here. That would also explain the radio silence of the girls themselves, which must have been hard because the St Jules fanatics were trolling them for all it was worth.

        So yeah, I believe the Swedish story. It's too convoluted to have been a plot, and Assanges' total silence on the matter with respect to the girls suggest he really, really doesn't want anyone to look in that corner as it would rather smear (sorry) what's left of his "reputation"..

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Detailed without charge

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

    No Julian, you have voluntarily isolated yourself in the Equadorian embassy for 7 years. The UK Goverment neither been able to detain you nor charge you for anything due to your self imposed exile.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    Any..

    Article in regards to the US & Julian Assange should read.

    Julian Assange wanted for "criminally exposing US crimes" by US.

    We can all give our :eyerolls: and move on with our day.

  21. Mystic Megabyte
    WTF?

    Here's the dirt

    As you know, Trump has made the Whitehouse visitor log secret. Not any more 'cos I hacked it!

    Monday a.m:

    Bukir Vaniamin Ilyich

    Kislukhin Rustem Vitalievich

    Kovshevnikov Mikhail (Misha) Yermolayevich

    Borisyuk Makar (Makarka) Yaroslavovich

    Vakhrov Yelisey Vasilievich

    Chernetsky Artemiy Valeryevich

    Tatarinov Lazar Rodionovich

    Nevzorov Dmitriy (Dima) Tikhonovich

    Zykov Miloslav Aleskeevich

    Rogozin Boleslaw Tikhonovich

    Monday p.m.

    Yuveleva Lada Romanovna

    Minina Miloslava Innokentievna

    Revyakina Sofia Larionovna

    Skuratova Serafima Yemelyanovna

    Nosova Nadezhda (Nadya) Vasilievna

    Vyalitsyna Alyona (Alyonushka) Yanovna

    Arzamastseva Lara Leonidovna

    Zimnyakova Glafira Yaroslavovna

    Tsaregorodtseva Aleksandra (Sasha) Valentinovna

    Ankudinova Raya Larionovna

    more to follow :)

    props to http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/russian_names.php

    1. WolfFan Silver badge

      Re: Here's the dirt

      Hmm... so where are the young lovelies Olga, Svetlana, and their friends who keep on emailing me, imploring me to marry them so that they can get green cards? Or their other friends Dmitri, Boris, and Ivan who have such lovely jobs waiting for me if only I send them my name, address, zip code, SSN, etc.?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Here's the dirt

        "other friends Dmitri, Boris, and Ivan who have such lovely jobs waiting for me if only I send them my name, address, zip code, SSN, etc.?"

        I take it you haven't applied for a Russian visa - then they'do already have physical possession of your passport for a bit .....

  22. Ryan Kendall

    Dog behind a gate

    He's like a dog behind a gate, all bark.

    If he didn't skip bail and hide in an embassy, no one would remember him.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dog behind a gate

      He's like a dog behind a gate, all bark.

      Isn't chocolate bad for dogs?

      That explains the Ferrero Rocher :)

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So what about....

    "United States attorney-general Jeff Sessions says the Trump administration will make it “a priority” to arrest leakers, including Julian Assange."

    And what about all those people who were proven to break the law, conduct very dubious practices and all that?

  24. tekHedd

    Wikileaks

    Assange's poor decision making has helped make him a good attack vector when trying to eliminate the embarrassment of Wikileaks.

    As disappointing as Assange has become, it's easy to forget that his real crime is being involved in exposing corruption. Which is mostly a good thing, regardless of his undecipherable personal motivations. Wikileaks is the ultimate target.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Wikileaks

      "it's easy to forget that his real crime is being involved in exposing corruption"

      There are people in Sweden who say he has committed real crimes but not the ones you mention.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He's becoming a bit of a tw*nt...

    There's 'smug', but even (most) politicians aren't "Assange-smug".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He's becoming a bit of a tw*nt...

      No, most aren't Assange-smug, and certainly not many are worse .... but .... Blair ... Farage .....

  26. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    So Trump chooses to stroke Assange's ego. I suppose it makes a change from stroking his own.

  27. JaitcH
    WTF?

    Sessions, the Brain-Dead Poster Boy of Trump Supporters

    Assange never has leaked anything; he is not an American citizen; he owes nothing to the USA,

    He is a rebroadcaster, akin to newspapers, radio and TV.

    If they can go for Assange, why not The Guardian, The New York Times or The Washington Post?

    Sessions, a silly little racist bigot who is the product of centuries of in-breeding from a very small gene pool based in Alabama. Dothan, Alabama, is the self-proclaimed Peanut Capital of the World which is why Session's (small) brain resembles a peanut.

  28. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Honey Trap

      Pamela Anderson, The personal flotation device?

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Priority

    So out of all there is to choose from, this is a priority?

    I don't think anyone other than an embarassed politician/ bureaucrat would think so.

    I think Assange has been doing what a free press ought to be doing: bringing governmental misdeeds to light.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bye bye Wikileaks, and good riddance Julian Assange!

    I used to support Wikileaks, because I believe that sunlight is the best desinfectant.

    And I had some sympathy for the arguments of Julian Assange with his claims of all too easy charges for rape that may have just been a front to expedite his extradition to the US, even if Assange never seems like a personable figure.

    As far as I'm concerned, at this point, MI6 and the CIA could storm the Ecuadorian embassy, and I wouldn't care, but for the incursion of Ecuadorian sovereignty. Why? Over the past years, Wikileaks has morphed into Assange's private vendetta arm against the Democratic party in the US. While understandable on a purely personal level - after all, the US ruled by a Dem government was to blame for his situation as a perennial couch surfer at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, what made Wikileaks attractive was as a locus for information disclosure that would otherwise not have seen the light of the day. Not as a conduit for shady one-sided hacking results fueled by hostile nation-states and a personal vendetta.

    At this point, the only thing that might keep Wikileaks marginally interesting is as a conduit for dirty GOP business - a party controlling two branches of the government outright and with a heavy finger on the scale of the third branch (SCOTUS). Alas, we haven't seen Wikileaks surface any interesting information about the new government since the election, or any interesting information other than suspect electoral meddling in years.

    So, good by and good riddance, Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

    And, thank you again Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning! I wish that your heroism in sharing malfeasant government actions not come with such a high personal cost.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Bye bye Wikileaks, and good riddance Julian Assange!

      "And I had some sympathy for the arguments of Julian Assange with his claims of all too easy charges for rape that may have just been a front to expedite his extradition to the US, even if Assange never seems like a personable figure."

      How do you work that out? He was in custody in the UK and released on bail. If it had been a plot to extradite him he'd never have got as far as the Ecuadorian embassy.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like