Wikileaks' Assange says Ecuador seeking to end his asylum
reuters.com
reuters.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
By doing so, you are interfering in other State's politics.
Perhaps you should be arrested for this political post.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
>> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is no link to the "memo" in the Reuters article. Maybe it was removed? Might you have the link?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigat...
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...
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).
Further, though dcleaks is mentioned repeatedly, there is no mention of Wikileaks. All my questions still stand.
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 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.
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.
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.
Do you understand that he can only leak what someone gives him?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
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?
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
By the way, Ecuador’s ex-president Rafael Correa called the treatment of Julian Assange as "basically torture"
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
There's no way the ruling class lets Assange even step a foot out of the embassy without immediately taking him into custody.
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?
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.
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag#Noteworthy_ship...
No, but a diplomatic packet is.
Just saying.
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.
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.