If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder.
But a journalist, should have the right to ask people to come forward if they have information with a public interest, even if it is classified. If someone comes forward, they may break the law, but not the journalist.
Further more, Assange is not a US citizen, and is there for under no obligation to be loyal to or protect US interests or secrets. He cant by definition be treasonous again any country besides his own.
If he on the other hand, provides material support to someone committing a crime, (like helping to crack a password), then he can be tried as an accomplice. This evidence seems to imply he did not.
Actually, here in the US, we don't have licensed journalists. As such anyone may act as one. Government employees (including members of the military) and contractors can be and have been charged and convicted with misuse/dissemination of classified information. What's more, private citizens working in the employ of a foreign government have also been charged and convicted for providing classified information to that foreign government.
However, no US journalist (and remember, anyone can be a journalist) has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act. Ever.
As such, it seems incredibly unlikely that Assange would be convicted under that Espionage Act. I guess we'll just have to see.
I take issue with the title of this posting, as (at least in the UK[0]), an Extradition Hearing is not a trial, nor is it intended to be one.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, just pointing this out because there is no reason to retreat to the common sense position you advocate. The fact that you have to make such a sensible point is a reflection of the deep deceit and dishonesty of the prosecutors who clearly know this and are omitting it in order to try and paint a portrait of conspiracy that is factually wrong and they know it.
Could you please elaborate on why you think that matters to the charge of conspiracy?
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Assange is being accused of conspiring to break into a government computer not treason.
The fact that extradition isn't an equal thing isn't exactly shocking its a function of treaties between the relevant nations and wherein a power imbalance exists between those nations the terms are less likely to be equal and the US is still one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
The US does rarely extradite for example
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/u-s-citizens-extra...
Ivo is getting extradited for attempted extortion which he committed in the Czech Republic and when people commit crimes from the US against international parties they can also be charged with the a crime for those acts supposing they are against the law here.
Punishing acts where victim and criminal are members of different nations is often complicated. Few nations are eager to subject their citizens to foreign laws.
What I wonder more about is our own guys: how does manning and Snowden walk out the door with this info anyway? Our search procedures apparently suck.
For the record my assessment of our involvement in Iraq is not kind: we should have escalated to armed intrusion to vet wmds base by base instead of invading wholesale on the reason Iraqi's were evasive. Second torture is unamerican, not reliable, and wholly wrong. Not proud at all of what we did here. Our response before after 9/11 was incompetent.
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...
But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
> But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance.
So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1.
Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first.
EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.
If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.
Entrapment would be more like "We're going to bomb that building, and if you don't join us, I'm going to kill you... Hah! Just kidding, you're under arrest!"
"Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes."
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33...
While such a comparison might rub you (and me, for that matter) the wrong way, it's the "legal" interpretation that holds in a US Article III court[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_Unite...
IIUC, at least in the US, a charge of conspiracy requires an overt act by at least one of the conspirators[0]: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."
As such, in the scenario you present, unless those who discuss murder actually do something in furtherance of that discussed goal, it's not conspiracy.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
N.B.: IANAL
The example mentions a gun, but does not mention that it was procured for the purpose of committing murder. At least in the US, having a gun (there are more guns than people here) by itself isn't very remarkable.
If, however, the gun was procured specifically for that purpose, it could be construed as an overt act.
Alternatively, if someone retrieved the gun from a storage facility (as was suggested by another commenter) for the purposes of committing murder, that would still be an overt act.
ISTR a case where a woman contracted with someone (who turned out to be police acting on a tip from the owner of a website that claimed to put folks in touch with hit men) to kill her husband[0].
Just asking someone to do so wasn't enough. The police had to get the woman to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (in that case, paying the undercover cop).
[0] https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-t...
This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.
Rather, it's a separate charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1]. And that matters because the penalties are enormously more severe for the the former than the latter.
>This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.
Conspiracy is defined[2] as: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."
As such, the example was just that, an example. Would you be less butthurt if the example was conspiracy to steal office supplies from a US Post Office, and the overt act was to bring a hand-cart to the post office in order to cart away said office supplies?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
Edit: Fixed grammatical error
Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty.
The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.
There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
Well arguably that didn't happen.
> There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
I'd say that going to a place where you would get equipment is not something that substantially advances the conspiracy, even if there was a gun! It's actually getting the equipment that might do so, depending on what the equipment is. And if you're still collecting necessary equipment, or especially doing a prerequisite to collecting equipment, you're nowhere near the point of no return.
If Manning and Assange think that a recipe for fruit salad is a hash of a root password for some U.S. Government computer and then attempt to identify a collision for it, with the goal of allowing Manning unauthorized access: that's still conspiracy.
It's up to the prosecution to prove that J.A. == "Nathaniel Frank" (and yes, whistleblowers have a long history of leaking to multiple players in case one or more of them are in bed with the oppressor).
It's up to the prosecution to prove that "Nathanial Frank" couldn't have believed he was simply helping Manning regain access to whatever non-governmental stuff Manning has legitimate access to, and hence Manning has the right to grant others permission to crack his own hash...
The law states you are innocent until proven guilty, the law effectively states "Nathaniel Frank" was thinking about having permission for cracking the hash to the fruit salad recipe... until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, not the defense
Edit: I originally mispoke and had this backwards, but it doesn't actually affect the point.
No. At least in the US, it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.
The defense needn't prove anything. Although, it's often a good idea to find some evidence that exonerates the defendant.
Here's a little primer[0] for you.
[0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...
Huh? How would a prosecutor get to try (and attempt to prove) a case if they don't bring the case to the court in the first place?
Perhaps I'm missing something here?
"If I'm God, and we agree that I will kill everyone with my God powers, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that I'm not God, that's still conspiracy to commit murder."
Promising impossibility is not a conspiracy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/6le3hy...
Refer to, e.g. United States vs. Thomas: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-u... ... which is an actual appeal court decision.
The defendants were at a bar. A drunken woman collapsed. The defendants put her in their car, took her home, and had sex with her while they believed she was unconscious.
In fact, the woman had died at the bar, and they had been having sex with a corpse. They could not be convicted of rape, but they could be convicted of attempted rape because they believed the woman was alive at the time.
Being factually mistaken about the possibility of a crime is not a defense to a charge of attempt, conspiracy etc.
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2004/dec/09/attempted-vo...