this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2243 readers
88 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Powderhorn@beehaw.org
4
U.S. Official Hints at Possible Plea Deal for Julian Assange (theintercept.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Five@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Excerpt:

The United States is considering a plea deal that would allow WikiLeaks founder and whistleblower Julian Assange to return to Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy told the Morning Herald that there could be a “resolution” to Assange’s now-four-year detention in Britain. Assange, an Australian citizen, has been held in a London prison since 2019 while combating U.S. extradition efforts. He faces 18 criminal charges in the U.S., 17 of which allege violations of the Espionage Act.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fucking finally. The Obama administration declined to go after Assange because they knew how bad it would look for press freedoms in the US.

If they went after Assange, they could rightly go after the New York Times as well. NYT general counsel has said as much for years. Letting the case continue as-is was setting up for long term disaster regarding press freedoms.

The Trump administration had zero qualms about killing press freedoms. I gotta be at least reasonably thankful the Biden administration is trying to find a less severe offramp for what the Trump admin started.

Whatever you think of Assange (it is perfectly valid to not like him or what he does), this case was a dangerous precedent for press freedom in the US, so having it downgraded to less severe charges would be a good thing.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There were some very deluded people during the Trump years who thought Assange would get special treatment for his vendetta against Hillary Clinton helping to get Trump elected. But you nailed it right on the head -- killing press freedoms and not paying debts are even bigger parts of Donald's brand than gaudy letters on the sides of buildings.

But don't get it twisted. Then Secretary of State Clinton went hard against Assange, and it did look bad for press freedoms in the US. You have to remember the State Department did not take press freedom seriously at all, abusing the espionage act left and right. They put more journalists sources in prison than any other previous president. They went after journalists families, like when they detained Glenn Greenwald's partner in Heathrow. That should always be remembered as part of Barack Obama's legacy.

The Trump "Fake News" era was absolutely devastating to journalism, so it's easy to see Obama's administration through rose tinted glasses. But it's important to remember the damage they did that contributed to where we are today.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now now, I am not saying Obama or Biden administrations are paragons of freedom of press, but a lot of that had very little directly to do with Assange's case.

Greenwald's partner, for example, had far more to do with the US trying to catch Snowden. They brought down a foreign Presidents plane to try to catch Snowden, no less.

My point is simply that the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn't disentangle other media outlets. If they charged Assange, it would be open season on the New York Times, which also published the documents. I think that was a wise decision.

Now the US establishment was all too happy to smear Assange during this time, especially in regards to the Swedish case and his claims of worries of extradition, but legally, they didn't actually pursue him, for valid reasons. Legal pursuit came during the Trump administration, which was happy to destroy the future of press freedoms tenfold.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn’t disentangle other media outlets

I'm getting really confused; the history I remember is that the Grand Jury decided to prosecute not just once in a sealed indictment, but then added further controversial charges in a second indictment.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All of which happened during the Trump administration.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/

Here is Glenn Greenwald discussing the Obama era DOJ and their choices on the matter, in response to the indictment you are referencing.

Prior to that, they did not recommend charges. The original Grand Jury was set in motion in 2010.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're right, it was during the Trump administration. For some reason I thought the first indictment had been made and then sealed during Obama's tenure. Trump's attack was a major escalation.

I don't see any reference to a Grand Jury in the linked article, and I can't find anything in Google about "assange grand jury 2010". Are you thinking about this section?

Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

It seems to indicate that they didn't even bother to assemble a grand jury, which is even better for Obama.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] Five@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks. Yeah, I think I heard about this jury, but only that its deliberation was secret, and I never found out what was decided. When the indictment was unsealed, I assumed it was the revelation of this Jury's decision.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Easy to get mixed up. It has been a long and complex case!

Even more complex with the changing of administrations who each handled it differently.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you remember when the decision of the 2011 grand jury was revealed? If they kept it secret to scare Assange, that's still a pretty outrageous form of press intimidation.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Oh agreed and I am pretty sure they were happy to leave it hanging over him for intimidation purposes.

Democrats are "better" on press freedom simply because their moves are more overt than direct, so fewer people notice them.