Wikileaks' Assange says Ecuador seeking to end his asylum(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Wikileaks' Assange says Ecuador seeking to end his asylum
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-assange-asylum/wikileaks-assange-says-ecuador-seeking-to-end-his-asylum-idUSKCN1N32AD
108 comments
Did you read the actual memo? Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from doing any activities that might be considered political.
To me, reading the various restrictions, it seems pretty obvious that they're designed to give them as excuse to kick him out, and the lawsuit is just a way to buy some time.
To me, reading the various restrictions, it seems pretty obvious that they're designed to give them as excuse to kick him out, and the lawsuit is just a way to buy some time.
> Point 24, just as an example, prevents him from doing any activities that might be considered political.
No, he can participate in Ecuadorian politics all he wants, it merely prohibits him from interfering in other State’s politics; such interference violates international law when conducted from a diplomatic outpost, and Ecuador is obliged by international law to prevent it.
No, he can participate in Ecuadorian politics all he wants, it merely prohibits him from interfering in other State’s politics; such interference violates international law when conducted from a diplomatic outpost, and Ecuador is obliged by international law to prevent it.
Stopping him from voicing his opinion is also a violation of international law, refugees are guranteed the right to free expression.
I'm also unclear as to what law you say they're violating. At most, I can see them put in a situation where Britain doesn't respect Assange's diplomatic immunity, and we are well past that point.
I'm also unclear as to what law you say they're violating. At most, I can see them put in a situation where Britain doesn't respect Assange's diplomatic immunity, and we are well past that point.
> I'm also unclear as to what law you say they're violating.
Article 41, Sec. 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (and, depending on the degree of responsibility diplomatic staff have in contributing to Assange’s actions, possibly also Sec. 1 of the same article.)
> I can see them put in a situation where Britain doesn't respect Assange's diplomatic immunity,
Assange has never had diplomatic immunity; the issue is Ecuador allowing it's embassy to be used in a manner inconsistent with its diplomatic purpose, which, yes, is well past the point of an individual proposed diplomat being rejected by the receiving state.
Article 41, Sec. 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (and, depending on the degree of responsibility diplomatic staff have in contributing to Assange’s actions, possibly also Sec. 1 of the same article.)
> I can see them put in a situation where Britain doesn't respect Assange's diplomatic immunity,
Assange has never had diplomatic immunity; the issue is Ecuador allowing it's embassy to be used in a manner inconsistent with its diplomatic purpose, which, yes, is well past the point of an individual proposed diplomat being rejected by the receiving state.
As you say, Assange has never received the privileges and immunities, so I don't see how he can be expected to stay out of politics.
From my perspective, it seems an embassy's right to hold a refugee was shown in the Noriega affair. If they are allowed to shelter a refugee without losing their diplomatic rights, I don't see how they can apply diplomatic law to him.
From my perspective, it seems an embassy's right to hold a refugee was shown in the Noriega affair. If they are allowed to shelter a refugee without losing their diplomatic rights, I don't see how they can apply diplomatic law to him.
[deleted]
In what way is hosting Assange and allowing him to blog "incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between [Equador and the UK]" ?
Hosting him is (probably) not, in and of itself.
Allowing him to blog per se also not.
Allowing him to blog (and, even moreso materially supporting him in so doing) in a manner directed at influencing the internal politics of the UK, however, is, because such interference (aside from any participation in it being expressly prohibited to protected diplomatic personnel by Sec. 1 of Art. 41) is universally understood in international law to be incompatible with the function of a diplomatic outpost.
Allowing him to blog per se also not.
Allowing him to blog (and, even moreso materially supporting him in so doing) in a manner directed at influencing the internal politics of the UK, however, is, because such interference (aside from any participation in it being expressly prohibited to protected diplomatic personnel by Sec. 1 of Art. 41) is universally understood in international law to be incompatible with the function of a diplomatic outpost.
Sounds pretty reasonable.
Umm, excuse me, but your post here sounds political.
By doing so, you are interfering in other State's politics.
Perhaps you should be arrested for this political post.
By doing so, you are interfering in other State's politics.
Perhaps you should be arrested for this political post.
That makes total sense, assuming dragonwriter is posting it from a diplomatic post. If not, then I'm not sure what your point is.
Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech?
Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech?
This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important to protect than political speech. It is quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.
Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech?
This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important to protect than political speech. It is quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.
> Your argument is seriously that it should not be ok for people who are in an embassy to engage in speech?
Speech directed at interfering in the politics of th receiving country (or, to a lesser extent, third countries), yes.
And it's not just my or ascorbic’s idea, it's fundamental to the entire premise of permitting the special privileges associated with embassies, and incorporated into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
(Non-diplomatic personnel residing in an embassy for an extended period of time is itself something of a hack not really envisioned by the Convention.)
> Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech?
Not being allowed to remain in embassy is not a criminal sanction.
Speech directed at interfering in the politics of th receiving country (or, to a lesser extent, third countries), yes.
And it's not just my or ascorbic’s idea, it's fundamental to the entire premise of permitting the special privileges associated with embassies, and incorporated into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
(Non-diplomatic personnel residing in an embassy for an extended period of time is itself something of a hack not really envisioned by the Convention.)
> Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech?
Not being allowed to remain in embassy is not a criminal sanction.
Imagine if the US started deporting Saudi Arabian persecuted journalists back to Saudia Arabia, if those journalists criticized Canada. (And then Saudia proceeded to murder those asylum deportees. )
This is basically the same exact situation. Just because the US didnt murder the deported asylum seekers, it is still an extreme attack on free speech to deport them, to be murdered by another country, because they criticizing Canada.
This is basically the same exact situation. Just because the US didnt murder the deported asylum seekers, it is still an extreme attack on free speech to deport them, to be murdered by another country, because they criticizing Canada.
Only if dragonwriter posted it from within another country's embassy. I'm going to make a guess that dragonwriter didn't do that.
More: Assange isn't going to be arrested (by Ecuador). He's going to be kicked out of the embassy if he keeps being politically active. Now it's Assange's choice: Leave the embassy in order to keep being politically active, or stay there and shut up.
More: Assange isn't going to be arrested (by Ecuador). He's going to be kicked out of the embassy if he keeps being politically active. Now it's Assange's choice: Leave the embassy in order to keep being politically active, or stay there and shut up.
Well, I probably wouldn't make it—at least without clearing it with my hosts—as a guest of an embassy.
Publishing the truth only constitutes interference in the eyes of those who don't want to see it. If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador. But he doesn't.
> Publishing the truth only constitutes interference in the eyes of those who don't want to see it.
That something is factually accurate does not mean it is not published with the purpose of manipulating political outcomes.
Not that everything Assange has done is non-editorialized relay of fact.
> If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador.
Ecuador is merely fulfilling it's obligation under international law; the primary offended party is the UK, here, who is the party that has objected that Ecuador permitting Assange’s political activities directed at the UK and other states violates Ecuador's obligations under international law.
Having diplomatic facilities on the territory of another country is not a right, it is a privileged extended under terms (many of which are standardized in international law.)
That something is factually accurate does not mean it is not published with the purpose of manipulating political outcomes.
Not that everything Assange has done is non-editorialized relay of fact.
> If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador.
Ecuador is merely fulfilling it's obligation under international law; the primary offended party is the UK, here, who is the party that has objected that Ecuador permitting Assange’s political activities directed at the UK and other states violates Ecuador's obligations under international law.
Having diplomatic facilities on the territory of another country is not a right, it is a privileged extended under terms (many of which are standardized in international law.)
But it's factual, as you said. He has a track record of publishing the truth whether you like it or not.
>> the primary offended party is the UK
Sorry, I disagree. Primary offended party here is Assange - a victim of powers that be trying to contain him. UK is the primary bully here.
>> the primary offended party is the UK
Sorry, I disagree. Primary offended party here is Assange - a victim of powers that be trying to contain him. UK is the primary bully here.
If I had a database of all Wakandan military assets and their locations, and I published it, that would be both truthful and definitely interfering with a (albeit fictional) foreign nation.
There are legitimate reasons for countries to keep secrets, just as there are legitimate reasons for individuals to keep secrets.
And that’s without one-sided reporting (“Her emails!” “If that’s important, what about his phone?”) or outright falsehoods (I am glad to say I don’t think Assange has done that outside of misrepresenting himself).
There are legitimate reasons for countries to keep secrets, just as there are legitimate reasons for individuals to keep secrets.
And that’s without one-sided reporting (“Her emails!” “If that’s important, what about his phone?”) or outright falsehoods (I am glad to say I don’t think Assange has done that outside of misrepresenting himself).
Google translate gives me this:
"24. Mr. Julian Assange is reminded that, while the Republic of Ecuador recognized as an asylee, shall, when exercising his right of communication and of freedom of expression from the Embassy of Ecuador in London, abide by scrupulously the conventional and customary norms of asylum diplomatic, among others, especially, the prohibition to carry out activities that could be considered as policies and interference in internal affairs from other States, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other State, whatever form is used to execute said activities"
Original text, in Spanish: https://archive.org/stream/AssangeEmbassyProtocols/Assange%2...
"24. Mr. Julian Assange is reminded that, while the Republic of Ecuador recognized as an asylee, shall, when exercising his right of communication and of freedom of expression from the Embassy of Ecuador in London, abide by scrupulously the conventional and customary norms of asylum diplomatic, among others, especially, the prohibition to carry out activities that could be considered as policies and interference in internal affairs from other States, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other State, whatever form is used to execute said activities"
Original text, in Spanish: https://archive.org/stream/AssangeEmbassyProtocols/Assange%2...
Love him or hate him, they're not required to keep him in their embassy forever, or pay his bills and clean up after him. Regardless of what he did, in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter.
> Regardless of what he did, in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter.
No, he's more like a couchsurfer that wants the legal tenant on whose couch he is staying to provide cleaning services, indefinite rent-free residency, and to allow him to do things that violate the tenant's lease.
But not a squatter, because he has permission, for now.
No, he's more like a couchsurfer that wants the legal tenant on whose couch he is staying to provide cleaning services, indefinite rent-free residency, and to allow him to do things that violate the tenant's lease.
But not a squatter, because he has permission, for now.
gufle(1)
>> in the civilian world, he'd be similar to a squatter.
No and no. This is the civilian world. An embassy is an outpost of a civilian government. Despite all the spycraft associated with them, they are not military outposts and government cannot conduct military operations from them. They are armed only enough to defend themselves.
He is also definitely not a squatter. He was invited in. Squatters by definition enter without permission.
No and no. This is the civilian world. An embassy is an outpost of a civilian government. Despite all the spycraft associated with them, they are not military outposts and government cannot conduct military operations from them. They are armed only enough to defend themselves.
He is also definitely not a squatter. He was invited in. Squatters by definition enter without permission.
Squatters often enter with permission, but don't leave.
There is a legal distinction that really matters on a daily basis. A renter who fails to pay rent isn't a squatter. A delinquent renter cannot be instantly arrested for trespass. Someone who enters without permission can be instantly arrested without much in the way of process (trespasser, robbers, drunk people etc). Someone who had previous permission can only be evicted after a lengthy process.
Where "adverse possession" aka squatter's rights exists, one much stay without the permission of the owner. A potential adverse possession can be avoided by the landowner giving permission. That stops any running clocks as the possession is no longer "adverse" to the rights of the owner.
Where "adverse possession" aka squatter's rights exists, one much stay without the permission of the owner. A potential adverse possession can be avoided by the landowner giving permission. That stops any running clocks as the possession is no longer "adverse" to the rights of the owner.
The memo isn't linked in the article.
>"Did you read the actual memo?"
There is no link to the "memo" in the Reuters article. Maybe it was removed? Might you have the link?
There is no link to the "memo" in the Reuters article. Maybe it was removed? Might you have the link?
No, I used a search engine. It's not hard to find: http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...
Filing a lawsuit against the people providing your asylum probably wasn't wise. Especially given the imposed conditions seemed reasonable (pay your own medical bills, pick up after your cat, etc).
After the crap he pulled by coordinating with the Russians to mess with the last elections, I'm surprised Ecuador is still providing asylum to him.
Where is your proof that he coordinated anything with the Russians? From what I can see, he publishes leaks which happen to be true.
>he publishes leaks which happen to be true.
How many anti-Kremlin leaks did he publish?
Also, are you saying that the Podesta email dump timing (few hours after the Access tape was released) was coincidental ... especially given that our intelligence agencies acknowledge that it was the Russians that hacked/phished Podesta's account?
Give me a break. WikiLeaks is either a Russian intelligence front or a willing patsy.
How many anti-Kremlin leaks did he publish?
Also, are you saying that the Podesta email dump timing (few hours after the Access tape was released) was coincidental ... especially given that our intelligence agencies acknowledge that it was the Russians that hacked/phished Podesta's account?
Give me a break. WikiLeaks is either a Russian intelligence front or a willing patsy.
You've still provided no evidence? These are all simply opinions and without any hard evidence you can't even really prove assange didn't get the emails in late September and then released them in early October ASAP.
Mueller isn't making much if anything public and we're told to prepare for disappointment regarding the whole Russia narrative [1]. This kind of undermines the whole thing.
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigat...
Mueller isn't making much if anything public and we're told to prepare for disappointment regarding the whole Russia narrative [1]. This kind of undermines the whole thing.
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigat...
>These are all simply opinions and without any hard evidence
Sure, some of it is speculation on my part but not much. We know WikiLeaks is a dump for Russian intelligence. WikiLeaks coordinating with the Russians goes all the way back to Snowden when Assange brokered asylum for him. We have multitudes of data points on that including statements from most Western intelligence agencies, including American, German, French and British. Wikipedia has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
All fake news?
>Mueller isn't making much if anything public and we're told to prepare for disappointment regarding the whole Russia narrative
I never thought that Trump coordinated with the Russians. Putin hated Clinton and Russia has a policy to fuck with the West - those two things are enough to explain them helping Trump without needing Trump to be directly involved. I do suspect that Trump may have engaged in some shady deals in Russia back when he was a private citizen and maybe there's a chance that the Russians have something damaging on Trump - but I freely admit this is just speculation on my part.
But the Trump collusion is a separate question to Wikileaks coordinating with the Russians or being a front for Russian intelligence.
Sure, some of it is speculation on my part but not much. We know WikiLeaks is a dump for Russian intelligence. WikiLeaks coordinating with the Russians goes all the way back to Snowden when Assange brokered asylum for him. We have multitudes of data points on that including statements from most Western intelligence agencies, including American, German, French and British. Wikipedia has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
All fake news?
>Mueller isn't making much if anything public and we're told to prepare for disappointment regarding the whole Russia narrative
I never thought that Trump coordinated with the Russians. Putin hated Clinton and Russia has a policy to fuck with the West - those two things are enough to explain them helping Trump without needing Trump to be directly involved. I do suspect that Trump may have engaged in some shady deals in Russia back when he was a private citizen and maybe there's a chance that the Russians have something damaging on Trump - but I freely admit this is just speculation on my part.
But the Trump collusion is a separate question to Wikileaks coordinating with the Russians or being a front for Russian intelligence.
How many anti-Kremlin leaks did he not publish?
Do you understand that he can only leak what someone gives him?
Do you understand that he can only leak what someone gives him?
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
This is rather unconvincing. Wikileaks stated they believed the documents were already public, which the source doesn't seem to have tried to correct. Wikileaks then said that the leak would be a low priority, which makes sense given their lack of Russian speakers on staff and the lack of news stories the leak ultimately led to. If you think they are trying to silence the leaks and protect Russia, what excuse does the Washington Post owned Foreign Policy have?
>This is rather unconvincing.
I bet it is to you. You can always contort facts to fit your conclusion, but I don't think that's honest. How about the fact that pretty much every western intelligence agency, including American, French, German and British, has noted the connection between Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks? Wikipedia has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
Fake news, right?
I bet it is to you. You can always contort facts to fit your conclusion, but I don't think that's honest. How about the fact that pretty much every western intelligence agency, including American, French, German and British, has noted the connection between Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks? Wikipedia has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
Fake news, right?
First, none of this further shows that they actively avoid leaking documents critical of Russia, which is what they are being accused of. I don't need to contort facts. Their reply of "As far as we recall these are already public" may have been incorrect, but they expressed their uncertainty, and there is nothing showing the source challenged their conclusion. The conclusion "they were wrong" seems more likely than "they're part of a conspiracy."
As for your post, the intelligence agencies conclude that Russia is using Wikileaks. That seems likely. The general claim that Wikileaks/Assange is under Russian control is not shown.
As for your post, the intelligence agencies conclude that Russia is using Wikileaks. That seems likely. The general claim that Wikileaks/Assange is under Russian control is not shown.
>First, none of this further shows that they actively avoid leaking documents critical of Russia
No evidence that you would accept. Someone else posted a link of them declining to publish Russian military leaks [1], but you rejected it because of course you took WikiLeaks' response at face-value (why would they lie, amirite?). The wikipedia article I posted references multiple instances of direct coordination with Russian intelligence, such as Russia getting a heads up on upcoming leaks, WikiLeaks criticism of Panama Papers due to embarrassing info on Putin's inner circle (Assange blamed USAID and George Soros for the leak), and of course declining to publish leaked documents that would be embarrassing to Russia. Not to mention the clear political stance they took during the election to hurt Hillary, that just so happened to align with Russian ops. Assange was also employed by RT with no transparency around the nature of compensation. And on on on on. There is a mountain of evidence that shows coordination with and deference to Russia.
>The general claim that Wikileaks/Assange is under Russian control is not shown.
That's you moving the goalpost. Whether they are under direct Russian control, or a willing patsy or are manipulated or some combination of all those is interesting, but immaterial.
>the intelligence agencies conclude that Russia is using Wikileaks
Again, I don't know why you feel the need to downplay and soften the accusations against Assange/WikiLeaks and Russia? Are you just so enamoured by them that you can't even take a step back and see what they are doing? It isn't just Russia using WikiLeaks as a dump of incriminating information against their targets (which they are), there is active willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to play their role as that kind of dissemination medium. And that's what intelligence agencies concluded, not your waterdowned statement.
I think you're dishonest.
[1]https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
No evidence that you would accept. Someone else posted a link of them declining to publish Russian military leaks [1], but you rejected it because of course you took WikiLeaks' response at face-value (why would they lie, amirite?). The wikipedia article I posted references multiple instances of direct coordination with Russian intelligence, such as Russia getting a heads up on upcoming leaks, WikiLeaks criticism of Panama Papers due to embarrassing info on Putin's inner circle (Assange blamed USAID and George Soros for the leak), and of course declining to publish leaked documents that would be embarrassing to Russia. Not to mention the clear political stance they took during the election to hurt Hillary, that just so happened to align with Russian ops. Assange was also employed by RT with no transparency around the nature of compensation. And on on on on. There is a mountain of evidence that shows coordination with and deference to Russia.
>The general claim that Wikileaks/Assange is under Russian control is not shown.
That's you moving the goalpost. Whether they are under direct Russian control, or a willing patsy or are manipulated or some combination of all those is interesting, but immaterial.
>the intelligence agencies conclude that Russia is using Wikileaks
Again, I don't know why you feel the need to downplay and soften the accusations against Assange/WikiLeaks and Russia? Are you just so enamoured by them that you can't even take a step back and see what they are doing? It isn't just Russia using WikiLeaks as a dump of incriminating information against their targets (which they are), there is active willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to play their role as that kind of dissemination medium. And that's what intelligence agencies concluded, not your waterdowned statement.
I think you're dishonest.
[1]https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
>Someone else posted a link of them declining to publish Russian military leaks [1], but you rejected it because of course you took WikiLeaks' response at face-value (why would they lie, amirite?).
They posted a reason. If it was a lie it is a terrible one, as the followup of "no, some of it's new" exposes the lie. Without the followup their statement is a reasonable reason to pass on the data.
You specifically mentioned the Wikipedia claim backed up by four intelligence agencies. I did not realize I needed to address every other criticism or I'm "dishonest." Most of them boil down to a shared dislike of America, Assange can say ridiculous shit and dislike Clinton without Russian instruction.
>Assange was also employed by RT with no transparency around the nature of compensation.
This is false. Assange created a show, that RT bought the distribution rights to. Though I can't say what he got paid for the show, that seems fairly normal [1]
> That's you moving the goalpost. Whether they are under direct Russian control, or a willing patsy or are manipulated or some combination of all those is interesting, but immaterial.
So you're opposition is based purely on the fact Russia was involved? Wikileaks is guilty by association even if they did not take orders from Russia and were unaware of the source? I don't agree with that, Wikileaks should not need to determine the source's motive for the leaks.
>Are you just so enamoured by them that you can't even take a step back and see what they are doing?
Please, stop trying to attack me personally and address points made. Most of your post is just personal attacks.
The US government has spent a decade trying to discredit Wikileaks. The Snowden leaks provided some evidence of this happening. Though I don't fully support Wikileaks, I don't think they are just a tool of Russia. That narrative has been pushed on opposition journalists for a century now. And finally, even if Russia is behind a leak, the US should be held accountable for their actions. Coming from a worse actor doesn't justify many of the things uncovered in leaks.
https://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/about.html
They posted a reason. If it was a lie it is a terrible one, as the followup of "no, some of it's new" exposes the lie. Without the followup their statement is a reasonable reason to pass on the data.
You specifically mentioned the Wikipedia claim backed up by four intelligence agencies. I did not realize I needed to address every other criticism or I'm "dishonest." Most of them boil down to a shared dislike of America, Assange can say ridiculous shit and dislike Clinton without Russian instruction.
>Assange was also employed by RT with no transparency around the nature of compensation.
This is false. Assange created a show, that RT bought the distribution rights to. Though I can't say what he got paid for the show, that seems fairly normal [1]
> That's you moving the goalpost. Whether they are under direct Russian control, or a willing patsy or are manipulated or some combination of all those is interesting, but immaterial.
So you're opposition is based purely on the fact Russia was involved? Wikileaks is guilty by association even if they did not take orders from Russia and were unaware of the source? I don't agree with that, Wikileaks should not need to determine the source's motive for the leaks.
>Are you just so enamoured by them that you can't even take a step back and see what they are doing?
Please, stop trying to attack me personally and address points made. Most of your post is just personal attacks.
The US government has spent a decade trying to discredit Wikileaks. The Snowden leaks provided some evidence of this happening. Though I don't fully support Wikileaks, I don't think they are just a tool of Russia. That narrative has been pushed on opposition journalists for a century now. And finally, even if Russia is behind a leak, the US should be held accountable for their actions. Coming from a worse actor doesn't justify many of the things uncovered in leaks.
https://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/about.html
He publishes leaks of documents provided to him by the Russians.
Regardless of who provides them, he published them and they happened to be true. Other intel agencies are free to leak as they please.
But don't paint Assange as anything other than a person who publishes the truth. Unless you have the proof that it isn't.
But don't paint Assange as anything other than a person who publishes the truth. Unless you have the proof that it isn't.
>But don't paint Assange as anything other than a person who publishes the truth.
But he isn't that. Even in the most charitable interpretation you have to admit that both Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases, usually for political goals.
In the last few years, they've also been shown to coordinate with Russian intelligence to the point where they are see as either a front, or a willing patsy. This is the conclusion that multiple western intelligence agencies come to, including American, British, French, Dutch and German.
Wikipedia has a good write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
At this point, this doofus has no credibility.
But he isn't that. Even in the most charitable interpretation you have to admit that both Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases, usually for political goals.
In the last few years, they've also been shown to coordinate with Russian intelligence to the point where they are see as either a front, or a willing patsy. This is the conclusion that multiple western intelligence agencies come to, including American, British, French, Dutch and German.
Wikipedia has a good write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
At this point, this doofus has no credibility.
> his is the conclusion that multiple western intelligence agencies come to, including American, British, French, Dutch and German
Well, isn't that a bit self serving.
> Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases, usually for political goals.
As far as I've seen they curate so that people don't get in harm's way (see Bradley Manning's dump). They do time their release to get the biggest bang for the buck. I don't even understand why that's a criticism. Products from apple/google/samsung are released in time for xmas to get the biggest reception. NYT doesn't publish scoop on Nov 7th - they do it before the election. You cannot be serious with this criticism. As far as editorializing, I've seen very minimal amount of that (namely Collateral Murder data dump), but even with that the entire video was released, so you could make up your own mind.
> this doofus has no credibility
Disagree. His credibility will continue to be high as long as what he publishes is the truth.
Well, isn't that a bit self serving.
> Assange and WikiLeaks editorialize, curate, and time releases, usually for political goals.
As far as I've seen they curate so that people don't get in harm's way (see Bradley Manning's dump). They do time their release to get the biggest bang for the buck. I don't even understand why that's a criticism. Products from apple/google/samsung are released in time for xmas to get the biggest reception. NYT doesn't publish scoop on Nov 7th - they do it before the election. You cannot be serious with this criticism. As far as editorializing, I've seen very minimal amount of that (namely Collateral Murder data dump), but even with that the entire video was released, so you could make up your own mind.
> this doofus has no credibility
Disagree. His credibility will continue to be high as long as what he publishes is the truth.
Where's your proof that the documents definitely came from the Russians, and that Wikileaks knew who was providing it? If you manage those, do you think refusing to publish would have any meaningful impact?
For start, an indictment isn't proof. Though I find it likely that Russia was behind the hack, charging someone with a crime requires little evidence and there are countless examples of false indictments.
Further, though dcleaks is mentioned repeatedly, there is no mention of Wikileaks. All my questions still stand.
Further, though dcleaks is mentioned repeatedly, there is no mention of Wikileaks. All my questions still stand.
Do you have any evidence, or is this simply opinion? An indictment isn't evidence by the way.
How is that different than what he did with Kenya? He got a standing applause from the TED audience (hugely liberal (for America)/Democrat leaning) for that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do&t=2m13s
There was not much criticism for "interfering" in their politics on that one (though I'm sure there was by certain political classes in Kenya).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do&t=2m13s
There was not much criticism for "interfering" in their politics on that one (though I'm sure there was by certain political classes in Kenya).
The question was whether he coordinated with the Russians. I don't know the details of the Kenya leaks, but I'd imagine he coordinated with the people who leaked those to him too.
Grue3(2)
"Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment"
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigat...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigat...
I believe it. I don't think Trump coordinated with Russians. I think Putin's hatred of Hillary and Russia's policy to fuck with the West is enough of a reason for Russia to help Trump without needing Trump to be directly engaged.
Having said that, WikiLeaks collusion with Russia is a separate question and that one has already been show. For one thing, every major western intelligence agency has already made this point. Wikipedia has a nice write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
Having said that, WikiLeaks collusion with Russia is a separate question and that one has already been show. For one thing, every major western intelligence agency has already made this point. Wikipedia has a nice write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
"The new president of Ecuador is not the strong and good man than his predecessor was."
That comment really, really bothers me, even though I am no supporter of the new president. Assange was granted assylum by Correa, the previous president, a populist, a big ally of Chavez/Maduro. Granting asylum to Assange was a great international PR move for him. It made Correa seem like a supporter of freedom of speach/press. While he was in power there was no freedom of press/speach here in Ecuador. Today several of his top officials are in prison or have fled the country. Correa himself is wanted for the attempted kidnapping of an ecuadorian opposition leader in Colombia. The only reason this came to light is because the colombian police was able to capture the kidnappers during the attempted kidnapping. It turns out the kidnappers were all government officials... Many similarities to the Kagashogi story.
Anyhow I truly wonder if Assange has the slightest idea of what type of 'leader' he received assylum from.... It is so ironic....
Something like Wikileaks would have been never, ever seen the light of day during Correa's regime here in Ecuador.
Everyone saying not to sue your asylum host, please consider, there's aren't too many way to interface with something as nebulous as a government and its law.
Talking to handlers only gets you so far. When your livelihood is at stake, and you want guarantees, you have to use the correct channel. They're not attacking the government. They're asking for clarification.
Talking to handlers only gets you so far. When your livelihood is at stake, and you want guarantees, you have to use the correct channel. They're not attacking the government. They're asking for clarification.
I haven't read much in detail on this, but it seems to me like an unintentional stress test for asylum seeker accommodations. Doesn't really matter how you consider Assange as a person. If you agree his claims for asylum are valid, he should be accommodated like anyone else, not just ignored as an exceptional case because he's showed jerk qualities, made serious journalistic gaffs, and the most powerful governments all hate him.
By the way, Ecuador’s ex-president Rafael Correa called the treatment of Julian Assange as "basically torture"
By the way, Ecuador’s ex-president Rafael Correa called the treatment of Julian Assange as "basically torture"
It's not clear who the "like anyone else" comparison would be -- it is easy to imagine that the specifics of seeking asylum at a foreign embassy are very different than seeking asylum in the country itself.
I would assume the average government gives asylum seekers a limited amount of transition aid (in finding housing, language instruction, buying initial food), and some of this may be provided by NGOs. Any costs incurred by the government may or may not go through general spending, but I would expect leverages domestic service provision (i.e. subsidized housing exists for non-asylum seekers and is leveraged to provide some for asylum seekers). Then after the first few years of asylum I would expect the government to have basically no further obligations to the person in question.
On the other hand, Assange's living costs are wholly paid by the government of Ecuador and presumably come from the operational budget of the embassy. Also, the embassy itself is going to be physically limited in size. I don't live in London but I did live in an Embassy Row in another OECD country for a few years and many countries had embassies not much bigger than a 3 or 4 bedroom house.
I definitely agree Ecuador, conditional on granting him asylum at all, should extend to Assange the same benefits they do to other long-term asylum grantees who live in their embassies worldwide. But I suspect the set of other people in that situation is cardinality 0. That's not Assange's fault, or Ecuador's or really anyone's. It'd surely be better for everyone involved if they could fly him to territorial Ecuador. But it is what it is.
I would assume the average government gives asylum seekers a limited amount of transition aid (in finding housing, language instruction, buying initial food), and some of this may be provided by NGOs. Any costs incurred by the government may or may not go through general spending, but I would expect leverages domestic service provision (i.e. subsidized housing exists for non-asylum seekers and is leveraged to provide some for asylum seekers). Then after the first few years of asylum I would expect the government to have basically no further obligations to the person in question.
On the other hand, Assange's living costs are wholly paid by the government of Ecuador and presumably come from the operational budget of the embassy. Also, the embassy itself is going to be physically limited in size. I don't live in London but I did live in an Embassy Row in another OECD country for a few years and many countries had embassies not much bigger than a 3 or 4 bedroom house.
I definitely agree Ecuador, conditional on granting him asylum at all, should extend to Assange the same benefits they do to other long-term asylum grantees who live in their embassies worldwide. But I suspect the set of other people in that situation is cardinality 0. That's not Assange's fault, or Ecuador's or really anyone's. It'd surely be better for everyone involved if they could fly him to territorial Ecuador. But it is what it is.
> If you agree his claims for asylum are valid, he should be accommodated like anyone else,
Sure, but there's not a class of cases where there is a discernable generic rule without sui generis considerations in virtually every case. Extended asylum in a diplomatic facility is an extraordinary situation, not a routine occurence with established standard practice.
Sure, but there's not a class of cases where there is a discernable generic rule without sui generis considerations in virtually every case. Extended asylum in a diplomatic facility is an extraordinary situation, not a routine occurence with established standard practice.
>"Doesn't really matter how you consider Assange as a person. If you agree his claims for asylum are valid, he should be accommodated like anyone else, not just ignored as an exceptional case because he's showed jerk qualities,..."
Wait so he should be "accommodated like anyone else" but doesn't have to behave "like anyone else" would? I think the great majority of people who would qualify as "anyone else" would go to great lengths to show their appreciation and gratitude towards their host of the last six years. Instead he's suing them? What I find so surprising is that for someone who is so geo-politically engaged just how poor his grasp of everyday interpersonal politics is. This person is a guest.
Wait so he should be "accommodated like anyone else" but doesn't have to behave "like anyone else" would? I think the great majority of people who would qualify as "anyone else" would go to great lengths to show their appreciation and gratitude towards their host of the last six years. Instead he's suing them? What I find so surprising is that for someone who is so geo-politically engaged just how poor his grasp of everyday interpersonal politics is. This person is a guest.
What U.S. charges is he seeking asylum from? Honest question.
He is seeking asylum from British charges, in part notionally based on fear that he will be extradited to the US on currently non-public US charges should he fall back into British custody.
Haha you're just so honest. As if USA doesn't regularly transport Americans and non-Americans alike to dungeons in benighted locales around the world for extrajudicial torture and disposal... "charges", that's classic.
Back here on earth, USA Senators from both parties regularly accuse Assange of all manner of perfidy. They've all got incriminating shit on file at the TLAs, and regular whinging about Assange or Snowden or whomever is table stakes. When Bloody 'Gina gets her hooks into this guy, who besides Rand Paul will complain?
Back here on earth, USA Senators from both parties regularly accuse Assange of all manner of perfidy. They've all got incriminating shit on file at the TLAs, and regular whinging about Assange or Snowden or whomever is table stakes. When Bloody 'Gina gets her hooks into this guy, who besides Rand Paul will complain?
What is a good way that I could ask this question without getting a toxic response from you?
A bill was passed labeling Wikileaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such." Though I don't think there is a public warrant for his arrest, they likely do have some sealed charges.
I find it alarming that sealed charges are even a thing.
Any links to famous cases, or is it all secret squirrel that we can't be trusted to know about?
Any links to famous cases, or is it all secret squirrel that we can't be trusted to know about?
> Any links to famous cases, or is it all secret squirrel that we can't be trusted to know about?
It is fairly common for indictments of persons not already in custody to be sealed initially if there may be issues with effecting arrest, and sometimes for other reasons (e.g., to avoid compromising parallel investigations). The grand jury process is intended to enforce probable cause requirements, not to provide notice to the accused so that they might better flee arrest.
Several of the indictments by the Special Counsel’s office, for some famous examples, were originally sealed.
It is fairly common for indictments of persons not already in custody to be sealed initially if there may be issues with effecting arrest, and sometimes for other reasons (e.g., to avoid compromising parallel investigations). The grand jury process is intended to enforce probable cause requirements, not to provide notice to the accused so that they might better flee arrest.
Several of the indictments by the Special Counsel’s office, for some famous examples, were originally sealed.
They are very common, quite a few felony arrests start sealed to prevent the alleged criminal from fleeing. Or on foreign individuals so they will travel to somewhere they can be grabbed.
Do you have any speculation for what those charges might look like if they're unsealed?
The usual speculation is Espionage Act charges related particularly to the Manning documents, but charges similar to those files against the various Russian parties with regard to the more recent leaks wouldn't be entirely implausible, either.
I doubt he goes to the US. I feel Russia will offer asylum.
And how would he get from the Ecuadorian embassy in London to Russia?
Probably in a body bag at that point.
There's no way the ruling class lets Assange even step a foot out of the embassy without immediately taking him into custody.
There's no way the ruling class lets Assange even step a foot out of the embassy without immediately taking him into custody.
a mass protest could cause enough distraction, but that would take a lot of organizing, and we all know how good the left is at organizing.
Please keep unsubstantive comments and political flamebait off HN.
Dang this is for you since I can't reply directly.
There is substance to what they said- mass protest can create distraction.
And saying that left is good at organizing is no kind of flamebait.
Can you clarify what you're talking about?
There is substance to what they said- mass protest can create distraction.
And saying that left is good at organizing is no kind of flamebait.
Can you clarify what you're talking about?
Taking right-vs.-left potshots in a throwaway remark is just way too low quality to meet the bar here.
The GP comment "probably in a body bag" was almost as bad. We're trying for more thoughtful comments here.
The GP comment "probably in a body bag" was almost as bad. We're trying for more thoughtful comments here.
>The GP comment "probably in a body bag" was almost as bad. We're trying for more thoughtful comments here.
It's just the truth. A lot of people/governments/entities want him dead. It wasn't meant to incite any kind of violence, just pointing out that he's a major target.
It's just the truth. A lot of people/governments/entities want him dead. It wasn't meant to incite any kind of violence, just pointing out that he's a major target.
Wait what was the potshot here? Was it the tone? "We all know"? Maybe but only very little. If you're going to get this triggered over smallest things than why not ban political topics altogether?
Doesn't the US have people waiting outside the embassy 24/7 to snatch him if he ever tries to leave? Could have sworn I read that once.
The UK used to have a 24x7 watch, but they got bored and left.
Was just recently in London and walked past! I didn't see anyone just parked there, but im sure they were being more covert.
“Oops, he slipped through our fingers and got away to Russia” is arguably one of the better possible outcomes for the present US Administration if Ecuador boots him, at least if that happens before Mueller closes up shop.
It's not a good outcome for a UK government that has to justify letting him slip through their fingers having previously spent an absolute fortune on policing.
The UK government seems to have recognized he sunk cost fallacy as a fallacy when they stopped the 24×7 “grab Assange if he leaves” watch.
Presuming Ecuador doesn't telegraph the timing of the ejection, I don't think there's a whole lot to justify that the UK government hasn't already clearly accepted the risk of needing to justify.
Presuming Ecuador doesn't telegraph the timing of the ejection, I don't think there's a whole lot to justify that the UK government hasn't already clearly accepted the risk of needing to justify.
I'm not 100% sure on how diplomatic immunity works here, but couldn't Russia send a diplomat in an official vehicle to the Ecuadorian embassy to pick Assange up? I think official vehicles get the same diplomatic protections of an embassy, so as long as he enters and exits the car inside embassy walls, he should be ok, right? Or does diplomatic immunity end entirely at the embassy walls?
The Russian diplomat would have immunity, the car is not a magic “immunity” force bubble for the occupants. Unless they grind him up and stick his remains in a diplomatic pouch, he’s gettable outside of an embassy. Diplomatic immunity doesn’t mean the police can’t pull you over and search you, it just means the diplomats in question can’t face criminal penalties as a result of what’s found.
Is there a limitation to what counts as a "diplomatic pouch"? According to the Wikipedia article, even shipping containers have been used before [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag#Noteworthy_ship...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag#Noteworthy_ship...
"... the car is not a magic “immunity” force bubble ..."
No, but a diplomatic packet is.
Just saying.
No, but a diplomatic packet is.
Just saying.
It's the other way around. Diplomatic vehicles do provide the same protection as an embassy. A diplomatic bag, however, does not cover people, so if he was found to be inside one he could be arrested.
[deleted]
> And how would he get from the Ecuadorian embassy in London to Russia?
Easy! They fly 15 specialists over on a day-trip, equipped with some good music and a bone saw, and every part of him will be in Moscow the same evening.
Easy! They fly 15 specialists over on a day-trip, equipped with some good music and a bone saw, and every part of him will be in Moscow the same evening.
Perhaps he will shack up with Snowden and they can both live it large in a government apartment while having their movements tracked until they don't serve the needs of Putin's establishment. At which time they will be traded to the Americans for some behind-the-scenes consideration.
They definitely will not. Assagne is an important lesson for anyone considering becoming a voluntary pawn of statecraft operations: the CIA coined the term “terminate with extreme prejudice“ for a reason. These agencies are not known for their loyalty to assets. Once the mission (Trump’s election, in this case) has been completed, you are a liability to be disposed of. Assagne let this go to his head and apparently thought he was an invaluable partner, rather than a loose end.
... and hand him over to the United States.
The most important part. Not entirely unexpected, since the US backed candidate won the elections, and latin america is again almost socialism free. As in the good old 70ies. Let's see if they hack him to pieces as their dear friends do or just torture him for 90 years for exposing the US foreign policies.
The most important part. Not entirely unexpected, since the US backed candidate won the elections, and latin america is again almost socialism free. As in the good old 70ies. Let's see if they hack him to pieces as their dear friends do or just torture him for 90 years for exposing the US foreign policies.
The parent is pretty cynical and sarcastic but unfortunately I can't say it is far from the truth.
And that’s the evidence that they are trying to kick him out? Suing to challenge these rules certainly won’t help with the government’s good will.