Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
ren hoek

Wikileaks ⏳ | Assange arrested; Trump DOJ seeks extradition

Recommended Posts

May as well have an ***official*** thread.  

Wikileaks @wikileaks

ANNOUNCEMENT: Assange appoints Hrafnsson Editor-in-Chief after six months of effective incommunicado detention, remains publisher [background: justice4assange.com]

Edited by ren hoek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

May as well have an ***official*** thread.  

Wikileaks @wikileaks

ANNOUNCEMENT: Assange appoints Hrafnsson Editor-in-Chief after six months of effective incommunicado detention, remains publisher [background: justice4assange.com]

:yawn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

2 hours ago, Mile High said:

Why doesn't Ecuador just throw his whiny ### out the front door?

Because that's not how asylum is supposed to work.  As I'm sure you know, if he walks out of the embassy he is liable to be extradited to the US, where he could be detained indefinitely and psychologically tortured like Chelsea Manning was.  The UK government will not confirm/deny whether the US is seeking his arrest, though it's all but certain they are.  

The UN working group on arbitrary detention issued a decision in his favor, that he should be granted freedom of movement and issued compensation.  Assange has not had access to the internet, phone calls, or visitors outside direct legal representation for over 6 months, effectively living in isolation.  Human Rights Watch's General Counsel likened Ecuador's treatment to "solitary confinement".  He has not felt the sunlight for over 6 years.  They have threatened to take away the embassy cat- a gift from his children- and give it to an animal shelter.  

He is an Ecuadorean citizen.  Article 79 of the Ecuadorean Constitution forbids extradition of its citizens, and Article 41 bans asylees from being returned.  In short, the answer to your question is the rule of law.  Because Ecuador has failed to abide by the international treaties it helped ratify, and its own Constitution, Assange is resorting to Ecuador's own legal system.  

Rafael Correa‏ @MashiRafael Oct 12

Ecuatorianos: No permitamos que un traidor haga también quedar a la Patria como traidora. Ecuador fue el país de la mano tendida para Assange. Hoy es el país de la mano con puñal. Defensa de Assange presentará acciones legales contra canciller ecuatoriano

Ecuadorians: Let us not allow a traitor to make the country also a traitor. Ecuador was the country of the hand outstretched for Assange. Today is the country of the hand with a dagger. Assange's defense will present legal action against Ecuadorian chancellor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Ecuadorian constitution have ways to strip someone of citizenship?

Do all Ecuadorians get to live rent free in an embassy where they happen to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian Assange takes legal action against Ecuadorian government

Lawyers have filed a lawsuit in Quito, Ecuador seeking a ruling against the threat by the Ecuadorian government that it will renege on its political asylum for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, and evict him from its embassy in London, unless he meets harsh new terms and conditions outlined in a so-called “Special Protocol.”

The intensified persecution of Assange comes after nearly seven months during which Ecuador has prevented him from having visitors apart from his legal representatives and denied him his right to communication via Internet or phone, even with his children and parents. Assange has now been confined inside the small embassy, without access to direct sunlight, for over six years.

The British government has threatened to arrest him if he steps outside the embassy and has refused to give a guarantee that he will not be extradited to the US. American authorities have relentlessly pursued Assange for his leading and courageous role in WikiLeaks’ publication of information that has exposed US war crimes, abuses of power, intelligence agency spying and conspiracies, diplomatic intrigues and official corruption.

Ecuador, which provided Assange with asylum on June 19, 2012, turned against him after current president Lenín Moreno took office in 2017. As part of his venal efforts to restore relations with the US, Moreno ordered that all Assange’s communications be cut off on March 28 to prevent him publicly opposing the anti-democratic actions of the US and other governments. Assange was silenced one day after top-level meetings between Ecuadorian and American military commanders and officials.

WikiLeaks’ lawyer Baltasar Garzon gave a press conference in Spanish in Quito on October 19 to announce the law suit against Moreno’s government. An English language press release issued by WikiLeaks the same day detailed the scope of the draconian new conditions to be imposed on Assange:

“The protocol makes Assange’s political asylum contingent on censoring his freedom of opinion, speech and association. The protocol also requires journalists, his lawyers and anyone else seeking to see Julian Assange to disclose private or political details such as their social media usernames, the serial numbers and IMEI codes of their phones and tablets to Ecuador—which the protocol says the government may ‘share with other agencies.’ The protocol claims the embassy may seize the property of Mr Assange or his visitors, and, without a warrant, hand it over to UK authorities.”

Assange will have to pay for his own costs, including food and internet usage. The protocol stipulates that he undergo a medical examination every three months, at his own expense, and states that doctors can recommend that he be sent out of the embassy if they conclude that he requires urgent treatment. Due to his inability to safely receive adequate care, Assange has well-documented shoulder problems and dental issues, and is suffering the consequences of being denied sunlight and fresh air for so long.

On these terms, Ecuador has offered to continue to provide asylum and partially restore Assange’s ability to communicate on December 1, but on the condition that he does not express any view that the Moreno government deems to be “interference” in any other country’s “political matters.” In other words, a journalist and the publisher of a ground-breaking media organisation who was forced to seek political asylum will be effectively banned from expressing any opinion about any government in the world. If he does, he will be handed over to his persecutors. The conditions also imply that all his communications, even private, would be monitored, recorded and shared with US, British and other intelligence-police agencies.

The Ecuadorian government has imposed these terms to manufacture a pretext to evict Assange. At the same time, efforts are underway to strip Assange—an Australian citizen—of the dual Ecuadorian citizenship he was granted by the former government.

These actions are a clear response to stepped-up demands from the US establishment that Ecuador hand Assange over. Last week, congressional Democrat Eliot Engel and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen issued a bipartisan letter to Moreno labelling Assange as a “dangerous criminal and a threat to global security” who “should be brought to justice.” The letter asserted: “On numerous occasions, Mr. Assange has compromised the national security of the United States. He has done so by publicly releasing classified government documents along with confidential materials from individuals connected to our country’s 2016 presidential election.” It linked closer relations with the US to evicting the WikiLeaks founder from the London embassy.

The investigation by Special Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller into alleged “collusion” with “Russian meddling” in the 2016 election has sought to implicate WikiLeaks and Assange in the unsubstantiated claims that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump because of a nefarious plot organised in Moscow.

The purported evidence of WikiLeaks colluding with Russian intelligence is its publication of emails sent by the Democratic National Committee. It began publishing the DNC emails on July 22, 2016—on the eve of the Democratic Party convention, exposing the fact that the Clinton camp had sought to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the primary elections.

Facing outrage among the millions of people who had supported Sanders as a “left” candidate against Clinton, top DNC officials were forced to resign in disgrace over their attempt to manipulate the outcome. Later, in October 2016, WikiLeaks also published emails leaked from Clinton campaign director John Podesta, which shed further light on the right-wing, militarist character of her policies and campaign.

WikiLeaks does not reveal its sources, but Assange publicly stated that the DNC and Podesta leaks did not come from hackers working for Russian intelligence. He first revealed that WikiLeaks had information on the Clinton campaign in a media interview on June 12, 2016—well over one month before it was sent an email by a dubious hacker Guccifer 2.0 on July 14 purportedly offering access to an archive of Democratic Party emails. Former British whistleblower Craig Murray has stated he was informed that the data published by WikiLeaks had been provided to it earlier by disgruntled DNC employees who were outraged by the anti-democratic actions of its leadership and the Clinton campaign.

The Mueller investigation has nevertheless pursued the allegation that WikiLeaks conspired with Russian intelligence agents working for the Trump campaign to obtain and publish the information that damaged Clinton. The final report, expected to be released after the November 6 mid-term congressional election, may provide the pretext to seek Assange’s extradition.

The persecution of Julian Assange is one of the most egregious examples of burgeoning censorship of the Internet and efforts to silence all independent and critical media. Defenders of democratic rights and freedom of speech must use all available forums to demand his immediate and unconditional freedom and expose the myriad slander and lies that are being continually spread about the WikiLeaks publisher.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, msommer said:

Does the Ecuadorian constitution have ways to strip someone of citizenship?

Do all Ecuadorians get to live rent free in an embassy where they happen to be?

For what?  Being a publisher?

Do those people have a reasonable claim to political asylum?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 3:40 PM, ren hoek said:

He is an Ecuadorean citizen.  Article 79 of the Ecuadorean Constitution forbids extradition of its citizens, and Article 41 bans asylees from being returned. 

This is the tricky part. I agree, he is a citizen, period. Thus they should treat him like a citizen. However he's in an embassy in London, not in an apartment in Quito. If an Ecuadoran citizen is arrested in the UK for crimes then that's not an extradition issue, that falls under treaties affecting prosecution of their citizens abroad while detained abroad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Julian Assange takes legal action against Ecuadorian government

Lawyers have filed a lawsuit in Quito, Ecuador seeking a ruling against the threat by the Ecuadorian government that it will renege on its political asylum for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, and evict him from its embassy in London, unless he meets harsh new terms and conditions outlined in a so-called “Special Protocol.”

The World Socialist newspaper. Isn't this just a redo of the old organ for the Trotskyite Internationale? 

- I'm honestly not criticizing you, I think you know that by now. I'm always just fascinated how you rely on extreme left sources for arriving at far right results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

The Mueller investigation has nevertheless pursued the allegation that WikiLeaks conspired with Russian intelligence agents working for the Trump campaign to obtain and publish the information that damaged Clinton. The final report, expected to be released after the November 6 mid-term congressional election, may provide the pretext to seek Assange’s extradition.

I kind of think Assange has outplayed himself here. At the beginning of this thing he had a potential refuge in Russia, like Snowden. He couldn't quite square it I guess. But then later more recently Sweden dropped charges because of SOL had run out. It seems to me he had a window of public sympathy and American inertia where he could have gotten out. Now by his own inaction he is getting squeezed. He's already spent, what, 3-5 years?, in home confinement anyway. His organization does not rely on him exclusively, they will survive and are already. Get on with it and make his case in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

WikiLeaks does not reveal its sources, but Assange publicly stated that the DNC and Podesta leaks did not come from hackers working for Russian intelligence.

JA has an absolute get out of jail free card here. The data and metadata can speak for itself. Let it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All information should be free and transparent...except information Julian Assange determines otherwise not fit for freedom and transparency.  Cool set of ethics.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is the tricky part. I agree, he is a citizen, period. Thus they should treat him like a citizen. However he's in an embassy in London, not in an apartment in Quito. If an Ecuadoran citizen is arrested in the UK for crimes then that's not an extradition issue, that falls under treaties affecting prosecution of their citizens abroad while detained abroad.

Well.  I think the embassy falls under Ecuadorean jurisdiction.  Exiting the embassy would subject him to US extradition and a legal nightmare.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost like Assange is just a publicity seeking agitator with an over indulged persecution complex.  Who woulda thunk it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The World Socialist newspaper. Isn't this just a redo of the old organ for the Trotskyite Internationale? 

- I'm honestly not criticizing you, I think you know that by now. I'm always just fascinated how you rely on extreme left sources for arriving at far right results.

I don’t think the belief that a publisher should be allowed to publish documents in the public interest is right wing necessarily.  It’s closer to our purported western ideals than anything else.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dutch said:

All information should be free and transparent...except information Julian Assange determines otherwise not fit for freedom and transparency.  Cool set of ethics.

 

4 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Ren is convinced that Assange released everything he gets freely and transparently...until there's evidence that Assange doesn't. Then his conviction softens for a day.

Assange’s fatal error was publishing documents that were unfavorable to Hillary Clinton.  That was when this sort of empty character assassination began in earnest.  

But whatever you think about Assange, if you believe in a free press, you believe in the unassailable human right for him to have freedom of movement and publish.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fatal flaw was taking sides which made Assange a player in the game itself rather than an impartial publisher, no different than any government or organization in that regard.  He fell off his high horse when he picked up his lance costing him his balance.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Matthias said:

I believe in free speech. People yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is still not permitted. People publishing nuclear codes is still treason. There's plenty of rights and freedoms which I absolutely support. But none of them are giving unlimited deference over absolutely everything else in society.

Making things absolute is a cheap rhetorical trick.

Yeah he didn’t do any of that.  If he published the Jennifer Lawrence nudes or went out of his way to just doxx people that’d be one thing.  I don’t like that some people have been incidentally exposed/harmed by Wikileaks releases.  

But that doesn’t warrant him being effectively imprisoned/isolated the rest of his life, without access to sunlight, medical care, internet/phone calls, and his children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dutch said:

The fatal flaw was taking sides which made Assange a player in the game itself rather than an impartial publisher, no different than any government or organization in that regard.  He fell off his high horse when he picked up his lance costing him his balance.  

I find their reasoning for preferring a Trump presidency pretty agreeable.  But even if we don’t, the stuff they revealed was definitely in the public interest, hence tons and tons of msm outlets picking up on it after the fact.  Their internal politics really don’t have any bearing on whether the releases they made were materially relevant to the public interest.  

By extension, does anyone else that supported Trump or tried to help him win deserve to be holed up in a room without access to the outside world the rest of their lives too?  Like I understand why people dislike Wikileaks, but I don’t understand why they’re ok with a publisher being treated like a terrorist.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 3:40 PM, ren hoek said:

 

Because that's not how asylum is supposed to work.  As I'm sure you know, if he walks out of the embassy he is liable to be extradited to the US, where he could be detained indefinitely and psychologically tortured like Chelsea Manning was.  The UK government will not confirm/deny whether the US is seeking his arrest, though it's all but certain they are.  

The UN working group on arbitrary detention issued a decision in his favor, that he should be granted freedom of movement and issued compensation.  Assange has not had access to the internet, phone calls, or visitors outside direct legal representation for over 6 months, effectively living in isolation.  Human Rights Watch's General Counsel likened Ecuador's treatment to "solitary confinement".  He has not felt the sunlight for over 6 years.  They have threatened to take away the embassy cat- a gift from his children- and give it to an animal shelter.  

He is an Ecuadorean citizen.  Article 79 of the Ecuadorean Constitution forbids extradition of its citizens, and Article 41 bans asylees from being returned.  In short, the answer to your question is the rule of law.  Because Ecuador has failed to abide by the international treaties it helped ratify, and its own Constitution, Assange is resorting to Ecuador's own legal system.  

Rafael Correa‏ @MashiRafael Oct 12

Ecuatorianos: No permitamos que un traidor haga también quedar a la Patria como traidora. Ecuador fue el país de la mano tendida para Assange. Hoy es el país de la mano con puñal. Defensa de Assange presentará acciones legales contra canciller ecuatoriano

Ecuadorians: Let us not allow a traitor to make the country also a traitor. Ecuador was the country of the hand outstretched for Assange. Today is the country of the hand with a dagger. Assange's defense will present legal action against Ecuadorian chancellor

1. There's never been an extradition request to the United States that anyone has ever said actually exists; and

2. Assange offered to be extradited to the United States in exchange for Manning's release.  Manning was released over a year ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

1. There's never been an extradition request to the United States that anyone has ever said actually exists; and

2. Assange offered to be extradited to the United States in exchange for Manning's release.  Manning was released over a year ago. 

1. Schiff has hinted that there is an effort to bring him into US custody. 

https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/05/26/did-rep-adam-schiff-just-admit-the-us-has-a-secret-indictment-of-julian-assange/

Jeff Sessions has said that prosecuting Wikileaks is a priority.  Comey and Mark Warner shut down a ‘queen for a day’ offer that had been in talks for the intelligence agencies to have some curation over the Vault7 releases in exchange for a potential pardon (I might be remembering that one wrong).  The US has essentially made a $500M IMF loan to Ecuador contingent on turning Assange over to authorities.  A bunch of US lawmakers signed off on a letter demanding Ecuador turn him over to the US.  

At every turn, it’s been about subjecting Assange to the most nightmarish legal proceedings possible.  The UK has spent millions of dollars on surveillance and security details of Assange. That there might be an extradition order, which the UK government refuses to confirm or deny, would be about the least surprising thing on earth.

2. After being psychologically tortured for several years, causing multiple suicide attempts, Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted without condition.  There’s no reason for Assange to offer himself up to the US when Manning’s already free.  

Edited by ren hoek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

For what?  Being a publisher?

Do those people have a reasonable claim to political asylum?  

I don't know for what. I asked a question you did not answer.

Do people generally get political asylum in their home countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Matthias said:

How do you feel about completely over the top hyperbole? Big fan apparently?

What’d I say?  I’m trying to understand how people who have spent the last 2 years flailing around about Trump’s assault on the rule of law and the free press are silent as his administration tries to prosecute a publishing org like terrorists.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

2. After being psychologically tortured for several years, causing multiple suicide attempts, Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted without condition.  There’s no reason for Assange to offer himself up to the US when Manning’s already free.  

So timeline:

CM in prison

JA: I'll come to the US if CM is freed

CM: freed

JA: See ya, suckers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

1. Schiff has hinted that there is an effort to bring him into US custody. 

https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/05/26/did-rep-adam-schiff-just-admit-the-us-has-a-secret-indictment-of-julian-assange/

Jeff Sessions has said that prosecuting Wikileaks is a priority.  Comey and Mark Warner shut down a ‘queen for a day’ offer that had been in talks for the intelligence agencies to have some curation over the Vault7 releases in exchange for a potential pardon (I might be remembering that one wrong).  The US has essentially made a $500M IMF loan to Ecuador contingent on turning Assange over to authorities.  A bunch of US lawmakers signed off on a letter demanding Ecuador turn him over to the US.  

At every turn, it’s been about subjecting Assange to the most nightmarish legal proceedings possible.  The UK has spent millions of dollars on surveillance and security details of Assange. That there might be an extradition order, which the UK government refuses to confirm or deny, would be about the least surprising thing on earth.

It seems you are in the dark about how extradiction works. Maybe I should add the word "also", but that might be seen as piling on and it is important to be civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, msommer said:

I don't know for what. I asked a question you did not answer.

Do people generally get political asylum in their home countries?

I don’t know if their Constitution has such an out.  I don’t think political asylum would apply if they can live peacefully in their own country, but he’s not in the country of Ecuador.  He’s on a diplomatic island he can’t leave without running the risk of being imprisoned for life.  It’s more or less why he was granted political asylum in the first place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t know if their Constitution has such an out.  I don’t think political asylum would apply if they can live peacefully in their own country, but he’s not in the country of Ecuador.  He’s on a diplomatic island he can’t leave without running the risk of being imprisoned for life.  It’s more or less why he was granted political asylum in the first place.  

 

4 minutes ago, msommer said:

It seems you are in the dark about how extradiction works. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Matthias said:

There isn't a post of yours in here that isn't riddled with hyperbole and/or misleading generalizations.

Well sometimes I exaggerate or use sarcasm because that’s just how I talk to people.  Don’t take it so seriously.  Many of your posts are riddled with bad faith and indignant posturing so ?‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

1. Schiff has hinted that there is an effort to bring him into US custody. 

https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/05/26/did-rep-adam-schiff-just-admit-the-us-has-a-secret-indictment-of-julian-assange/

Jeff Sessions has said that prosecuting Wikileaks is a priority.  Comey and Mark Warner shut down a ‘queen for a day’ offer that had been in talks for the intelligence agencies to have some curation over the Vault7 releases in exchange for a potential pardon (I might be remembering that one wrong).  The US has essentially made a $500M IMF loan to Ecuador contingent on turning Assange over to authorities.  A bunch of US lawmakers signed off on a letter demanding Ecuador turn him over to the US.  

At every turn, it’s been about subjecting Assange to the most nightmarish legal proceedings possible.  The UK has spent millions of dollars on surveillance and security details of Assange. That there might be an extradition order, which the UK government refuses to confirm or deny, would be about the least surprising thing on earth.

2. After being psychologically tortured for several years, causing multiple suicide attempts, Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted without condition.  There’s no reason for Assange to offer himself up to the US when Manning’s already free.  

"I will agree to be extradited to the U.S. if Manning is freed."

"Manning is now freed."

"Excellent!  Now there is no reason for me to go to the U.S.!"

Real paragon of virtue, that one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, msommer said:

It seems you are in the dark about how extradiction works. Maybe I should add the word "also", but that might be seen as piling on and it is important to be civil.

I am actually in the dark about how extradiction works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Well sometimes I exaggerate or use sarcasm because that’s just how I talk to people.  Don’t take it so seriously.  Many of your posts are riddled with bad faith and indignant posturing so ?‍♂️

Perhaps you can state actual your position on all of this for us just once without using hyperbole or sarcasm, just so we all can understand what it is that you're actually claiming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Perhaps you can state actual your position on all of this for us just once without using hyperbole or sarcasm, just so we all can understand what it is that you're actually claiming.

Where did I use hyperbole to the extent that you couldn't understand what I was saying?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Where did I use hyperbole to the extent that you couldn't understand what I was saying?  

I don't know.  I think some of your positions and ideas about what's going on are ridiculous, but now it sounds like you're saying you're being hyperbolic and sarcastic at times, so I don't know what your actual positions and ideas are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t think the belief that a publisher should be allowed to publish documents in the public interest is right wing necessarily.  It’s closer to our purported western ideals than anything else.   

If I said to you that I think bloggers and commenters have the full free speech rights as "The Press" I'm guessing you and I would be on the same page. I do believe that.

My point had to do with World Socialist site and the fact their history goes back in time. As a matter of fact not opinion that group as a matter of history is specifically against free speech and free press. I think the right wing element is the part where I think these are basically democratic-libertarian values, so I just thought that juxtaposition very odd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Well.  I think the embassy falls under Ecuadorean jurisdiction.  Exiting the embassy would subject him to US extradition and a legal nightmare.  

This is I'm pretty sure a unique situation. The way I see it while he is yes an Ecuadoran citizen that does not give him the right to stay in property of the Ecuadoran government. In fact I'd think many Ecuadorans are wondering what the hell the government is doing expending money and resources on this guy. But even so even if you believe in him and his cause he can't stay in the embassy. Hypothetically you could argue this is similar to the US and Canadian citizens who were held in the US embassy in Tehran back in 1979-80, aside from the fact that they were actually being held captive. Did the Iranians have the right to keep them? Sure, yes, under their rules of sovereignty obviously clearly. Morally it was repugnant. However the US and Canada did get them out. Problem of course is that Ecuador the government - including the past one - didn't really want him there in country in truth. The guy has gotten a really large extension to make his own plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange stood up to have the mantle of hero. Ok, fine, act like one. Don't cower in the secretary's closet. Walk out, hold a press conference, go eat very publicly in a pub, and make the UK arrest you, then do the walk and be proud and make your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ren hoek said:

I am actually in the dark about how extradiction works.  

The first thing required is an international arrest warrant. These are not secret. The Swedes had one but have pulled it. To my knowledge the US have not issued one.

Now obviously, if the UK had a warrant pending for some reason (something wiki/GCHQ related perhaps) and actually arrested him the US could file after his arrest. The US warrant would have to be approved by a UK court before he could be sent over there. That would take months and thus the US warrant would have to be carefully crafted to ask for extradiction for something that was also in violation of UK law but not perpetrated against the UK

That said, it takes approx. one hour to get from the Ecuadorian embassy to the nearest airport (City), about the same for Heathrow (maybe a bit more). If he was smart and quick enough it would be possible to get on a private jet before anyone noticed, bound for Russia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Valencia said he was “frustrated” by Assange’s decision to file suit in an Ecuadorean court last week over new terms of his asylum, which required him to pay for medical bills and telephone calls and to clean up after his pet cat. 

“There is no obligation in international agreements for Ecuador to pay for things like Mr. Assange’s laundry,” he said.<<

- Truly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief.  What a disingenuous take.  It's not about paying bills.  It's about honoring their offer of political asylum.  

The US/Spain does not like journalists that expose their war crimes and corruption.  Ecuador is caving to them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

The US/Spain does not like journalists that expose their war crimes and corruption.

If I think hard enough, I can name a U.S. government official who does not like journalists that expose his crimes and corruption. It's the guy Assange greatly favored in the last election.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ecuador court throws out Assange lawsuit

 

Quote

A judge in Ecuador has ruled against WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, who had contested new rules imposed on him in the country's embassy in London.

The judge said a requirement to pay for internet use and clean up after his cat did not violate his right to asylum.

Mr Assange had argued that the conditions violated his "fundamental rights and freedoms", and were intended to force him to leave.

His lawyers have appealed against the ruling.

Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy six years ago to avoid extradition to Sweden in a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.

If he leaves the building he faces arrest for allegedly breaching bail conditions.

Earlier this month, Mr Assange was given a new set of house rules by the London embassy that included paying for internet use and taking better care of his cat. He was also asked to keep the bathroom clean and pay for his own food and laundry.

The bolded is interesting. Also, having to pay for his own internet, food and laundry, cleaning up after himself and looking after his cat? The horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2018 at 3:56 AM, msommer said:

Ecuador court throws out Assange lawsuit

If he leaves the building he faces arrest for allegedly breaching bail conditions.

Earlier this month, Mr Assange was given a new set of house rules by the London embassy that included paying for internet use and taking better care of his cat. He was also asked to keep the bathroom clean and pay for his own food and laundry.

The bolded is interesting. Also, having to pay for his own internet, food and laundry, cleaning up after himself and looking after his cat? The horror.

Nice distortion of reality by BBC here.  It is no wonder their readers are so profoundly ignorant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBC News‘ headline (10/19/18) finds the lighter side of being held incommunicado.

“Julian Assange Fights Asylum Terms Dictating He Has to Pay for Food, Cat Care,” chuckled an NBC News headline to a Reuters article (10/19/18) by Alexandra Valencia. The article reported inaccurately that

Assange has not had access to the internet since it was cut off in March, [Assange lawyer Baltasar] Garzon added, despite a WikiLeaks statement this week that it had been restored.

In fact, Wikileaks said that Assange’s isolation was “to be partially lifted,” but then, days before this mocking NBC headline appeared, WikiLeaks had stated:

Although Ecuador stated, hours after UN Special Rapporteurs on Press & Refugees met with its president on Friday, that @JulianASsange’s isolation would be lifted Monday, he remains isolated. A 2 pm appointment on Tuesday, with a legal advisor, was not let into the embassy.

Seems there is no time for accurate reporting about Assange’s treatment when you’re busy making a mean-spirited joke of it all. The Guardian (10/17/18) published an article prominently referring to Assange with the headline “How to Get Rid of an Unwanted Housemate.” Vice (10/22/18) similarly depicted Assange as a rude houseguest abusing the generosity of his hosts:

The Ecuadorian embassy recently demanded that Assange clean his bathroom, feed his cat, and stay out of heated online debates. Now he’s suing them for it.

By “stay out of heated online debates,” Vice (10/22/18) means that Ecuador refuses to allow Assange access to the internet unless he agrees not to express political opinions.

How did all these journalists miss that Item 24 of Ecuador’s “recent demands” explicitly prohibits Assange from engaging in any speech that is “political and that could interfere the internal affairs of other states or damage Ecuador’s good relations with another state”? In September, Moreno  told AP (9/27/18?

If Mr Assange promises to stop emitting opinions on the politics of friendly nations like Spain or the United States, then we have no problem with him going online.

I have contacted the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) several times by phone, email and through Twitter over the past few weeks, asking them why I have not found any comment from them denouncing Moreno’s silencing of Assange, explicitly on political grounds. When I finally reached a CPJ official by phone, I was told me they have “reported” on Assange’s case. No kidding. What they haven’t ever done is denounce Moreno’s ruthlessness towards Assange.

Assange Case Shows Support for Free Speech Depends on Who’s Talking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Nice distortion of reality by BBC here.  It is no wonder their readers are so profoundly ignorant.  

Should I file this under empathy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll tell you what’s funny about this. Assange *chose Ecuadorian citizenship. Really you’re talking about an Ecuadorian free speech issue here, and even though it’s a really arcane subject I know nothing about I can almost guarantee you that Ecuador has nowhere near the free speech protections historically or legally than what the US & UK possess.

Outside the Mideast, China, & Russia & NK can you imagine a worse place to choose to plant a free speech flag? He did this to himself, all on his lonesome.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’ll tell you what’s funny about this. Assange *chose Ecuadorian citizenship. Really you’re talking about an Ecuadorian free speech issue here, and even though it’s a really arcane subject I know nothing about I can almost guarantee you that Ecuador has nowhere near the free speech protections historically or legally than what the US & UK possess.

Outside the Mideast, China, & Russia & NK can you imagine a worse place to choose to plant a free speech flag? He did this to himself, all on his lonesome.

And yet there the US and UK are, extraditing a publisher for imprisonment and torture.  There they are, lobbying the Ecuadorean government to hold a journalist in solitary confinement for political expression.  There's the "resistance" liberals, cheerleading Trump's national security state as they do it.  And there's our "free" press, sitting on its dead ### as it happens to a journalist in plain sight.  An absolute joke 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

And yet there the US and UK are, extraditing a publisher for imprisonment and torture.  There they are, lobbying the Ecuadorean government to hold a journalist in solitary confinement for political expression.  There's the "resistance" liberals, cheerleading Trump's national security state as they do it.  And there's our "free" press, sitting on its dead ### as it happens to a journalist in plain sight.  An absolute joke 

Is Assange a journalist? He runs a database and that's it right? Does he do anything other than that? I'm not arguing, I really don't know what he does besides publish stuff on a database.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Is Assange a journalist? He runs a database and that's it right? Does he do anything other than that? I'm not arguing, I really don't know what he does besides publish stuff on a database.

Between publishing the documents, curating them, and assuming the personal risk for them, I think the difference is pretty inconsequential.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.