Many countries have the authority to prosecute crimes that occur on their soil even if the perpetrator is outside the country. Including Assange’s native country.
The foreign interference crimes apply to conduct that occurs in Australia. So, if the perpetrator was in Australia at the time they engaged in interference, then prosecuting them would be relatively straightforward, provided there was sufficient evidence. If an offender is outside Australia at the time of the interference, they could still be charged with a crime.
The US alleges that Assange was part of a conspiracy to hack computers in the US, ie he was not just a passive receiver, he was involved in planning the hack.
The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information
I don’t know what is going on here. On the one hand, I don’t trust Assange. On the other hand, I really don’t trust the Trump DoJ. Especially since they indicted Assange after the Obama DoJ concluded he hadn’t broken the law.
No, the SCOTUS has made clear that you cannot be tried in abstentia.
This case requires us to decide whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 permits the trial in absentia of a defendant who absconds prior to trial and is absent at its beginning. We hold that it does not.
Removed by mod
u/@[email protected] explained how
the reason is that the US can exercise such authority in practice with any consequences.
a bigger concern here is his native government’s limp dick response tbh
aint he from AU?
Many countries have the authority to prosecute crimes that occur on their soil even if the perpetrator is outside the country. Including Assange’s native country.
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make?
AU is not prosecuting here
The point is that the US is not unusual in prosecuting people in other countries. Australia and others do the same thing.
Who did AU prosecute like this?
Point I was making is that AU is failing to protect its citizen who is being harassed… BTW ;)
Australia, like the US and other countries, does not generally shield suspected criminals from prosecution.
And that’s regardless of whether the person is actually guilty. Just ask Amanda Knox.
Anyone involved in a crime committed on US soil can be charged with the crime.
Do you suppose hacking your computer should be legal provided the hacker is in Russia?
Removed by mod
The US alleges that Assange was part of a conspiracy to hack computers in the US, ie he was not just a passive receiver, he was involved in planning the hack.
Damn, do we have ourselves a glowie here lol
I didn’t say I think he is guilty. But the charges against him aren’t what everyone seems to think.
Man… What is US trying to show here? That they can drum up fake charges on people?
We got it! Nobody doubted it. We are all quacking in fear!
It just looks pathetic at this point. Fuck it hound him some more! why do I give a fuck.
It just looks like a desperate exercise of coercive power!
I don’t know what is going on here. On the one hand, I don’t trust Assange. On the other hand, I really don’t trust the Trump DoJ. Especially since they indicted Assange after the Obama DoJ concluded he hadn’t broken the law.
A trial would have been interesting.
Original allegations suggested that russian operatives supplied wikileaks with the docs
Removed by mod
I guess they committed the “crime” but how is US supposed to prosecute that with out looking limp dick?
US courts can still try him in absentia, i.e. if he’s not present in the courtroom.
If he’s in a country with an extradition treaty with the US, e.g. the UK, he can be extradited to the US for the trial or with a conviction.
No, the SCOTUS has made clear that you cannot be tried in abstentia.