Hacker News Reader

Comment by skilled | Hacker News Reader

> URGENT: Ecuador has illegally terminated Assange political asylum in violation of international law. He was arrested by the British police inside the Ecuadorian embassy minutes ago.

Source: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1116273826621480960

Holy moly, this will be interesting!

EDIT:

If you're interested, here's a video of him being escorted out of the embassy --

https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/1116281098747568128

EDIT2:

Comments from Snowden advising journalists to cover the story with authentic facts:

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1116285397284290560

View on HN

Of course Ecuador can revoke asylum.

It's very common practice around the world if a person's circumstances change and their original country is now safe. Likewise if Ecuador believes that there is no longer a threat to Assange they can revoke it.

> Likewise if Ecuador believes that there is no threat to Assange that can revoke it.

Thats a stretch considering they invited the police to arrest him.

The police were arresting him for skipping bail - that's not a political asylum issue.

No, but politically persecuting Assange under pretexts is. Since (I assume) Ecuador protected him not because they oppose persecution for sexual assault, but because they believed that was a pretext for political persecution, I do not see how the circumstances have changed. Except for the Ecuadorian embassy staff reportedly getting fed up with Assange, of course.

One of the ways that things have changed is the continued illegal political campaigning whilst in the embassy that Assange is accused of. Asylum doesn't give protection against breaking the law in the host country.

The police were arresting him to extradite him to the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks...

> Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.

That was a further arrest, after he was in custody. This is relatively common in the UK.

They may have assurances from the US that they won't extradite for all we know.

Or that US prosecutors won't seek an extended jail term or death penalty. Not that those were likely on the table anyway.

He has been a citizen of Ecuador since 2017. That's quite different to only having asylum status.

>Snowden advising journalists to cover the story with authentic facts

>retweets Russia Today and Cassandra Fairbanks

I can't believe people still defend this guy.

“illegally terminated”

That’s not how that works

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement

> to a country in which they would be in likely danger of persecution based on "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion"

Which, precisely, of these categories do you think he fits under here?

membership of a particular social group or political opinion

I'm relatively neutral on Wikileaks/Assange, but this is a stretch. I don't think "illegally leaking documents" counts as a political opinion any more than I should be entitled to asylum because I have a "political opinion" that MDMA synthesis should be legal and got caught for engaging in it.

That's intended to cover things like persecution solely for being a member of a political party.

it's not so much a stretch to say "transparency" is a political opinion..

i'm not even so much agreeing with what he did and full transparency, but to me all of this is clearly political.

Everything is political opinion, but the legal standards are much narrower. The idea that I can hold a political opinion that "I should not be arrested for breaking laws", break a law, and then expect not to be arrested because of my political opinion is ridiculous.

I'm firmly against his potential extradition to any other country, but let's be honest -- he's not exactly in trouble with British authorities due to his "political opinions", is he?

why is he in trouble for then ?

Skipping bail.

Skipping bail. For refusing to surrender to the court after he was released on bail, following his arrest for questioning over sexual assault allegations.

From charges that were dropped.

A central tenet of the UK legal system is that people on bail don't get to unilaterally decide they should just be able to skip it.

Also, the victims of crime don't get to "press charges" ro "drop charges", that's for the CPS.

The charges were dropped because the warrants could not be served.

He was never charged with a crime. There were no charges.

If he was anyone else the british authorities would’ve quickly forgotten about him jumping bail.

They wouldn’t have spent this much money and resources on just anyone.

Yes, the fact that Assange is prominent is obviously a factor. But that doesn't mean that there's some kind of sinister motive for enforcing the law in this case. Consider that the UK police spent £11m looking for a single missing child (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-madel...). Would they spend that much on a child who wasn't in the news? No. But I'm sure the people looking for her genuinely wanted to find her.

> If he was anyone else

If he was someone else who had a European Arrest Warrant outstanding for rape, the authorities would take it seriously. Our press are going to have a dim view of a foreign (alleged) rapist running around because the police couldn't be arsed.

Jumping bail to an embassy in Knightsbridge and talking to the media from the balcony isn't going to help them look the other way either.

> If he was anyone else the british authorities would’ve quickly forgotten about him jumping bail.

Ignoring the specifics in this case, I'm assuming you know absolutely nothing about our legal system? Jumping bail is not taken lightly in most of the world.

I know quite a bit about your legal system thank you. It is extraordinarily unusual to spend this much money to pursue any arrest warrant, much less one for such a minor offense.

Of course, now we know that there's been an US warrant on JA since at least Dec 2017

If it was for skipping bail, why is he getting extradited to the US where he did not skip bail?

He's not being extradicted, he was arrested in connection with an extradition request. He now has the opportunity to fight his extradition in court.

There is no obvious threat of persecution. Facing rape charges certainly doesn't qualify.

Assange is in danger of "persecution" based on his avoidance of the judicial process. That's not a protected class.

> > membership of a particular social group or political opinion

You missed the key point.

It's up to the Ecuadorian government to decide whether the threat of danger is legitimate or not.

It says it applies to the generic repatriation of refugees, not the specific repatriation of a political asylum seeker like Assange. There's also no evidence that Assange faces political persecution in the UK. His stated concern is about extradition to the USA, in which case he should apply for political asylum in the UK.

> His stated concern is about extradition to the USA, in which case he should apply for political asylum in the UK.

If I faced extradition to the USA, I am not sure if I would trust the UK to protect me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Revoking his asylum could be in violation of Ecuadorian law.

(But IANAL specialized in Ecuadorian asylum law)

He's an Ecuadorian citizen. Does the Ecuadorian law allow for the extradition of Ecuadorian citizens? It's quite common for this to be illegal.

Of course this wouldn't be your typical extradition as he was already on UK ground, but I think it would not be unreasonable for a court to view this as an extradition.

> He's an Ecuadorian citizen

Your information is a few hours out of date

> Does the Ecuadorian law allow for the extradition of Ecuadorian citizens

Yes, and also specifically to America, for what it's worth

> this wouldn't be your typical extradition

That's because it wouldn't be an extradition. Embassies are not extra-territorial. British police didn't storm the embassy largely out of politeness and convention.

>That's because it wouldn't be an extradition. Embassies are not extra-territorial. British police didn't storm the embassy largely out of politeness and convention.

My comment specifically acknowledged this, however I see a very real chance that a court might view this as an extradition. It is the .ec government handing him over to a foreign country after all.

International law isn't enforcable, really. It would be great if it were, but why would sovereigns give up absolute control of their legal systems?

There isn’t really such thing as international law. Only treaties between states that are sovereign, and as such can tear them up if they do not wish to abide to them anymore.

"International rules and customs" would be a better term. International Law is real but it is not "law" in remotely the same way that domestic laws are and using the same word for them is confusing.

Rules, customs and precedent. Which is pretty much the basis for law anywhere.

Here's a video that shows two guys that were present during his arrest: https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/111512606296137318...

What does Julian say in the video?

"UK has no sovereignty!"

"UK must resist"

"Resist this attempt by the Trump administration"

and something else when he's in the van which I can't make out with people talking over it.

> "Resist this attempt by the Trump administration"

Funny. Trump has said he loves WikiLeaks, and likely has no interest in Assange getting extradited to the US.

Problem is, Trump says a lot of things that he doesn't mean. Or he forgets, it's a little unclear.

But the American intelligence community appears very interested in the guy and is known to have been working on extradition process in 2018.

If the American intelligence community wants to extradite Assange, I don't doubt somebody high-ranking in the CIA will sit down with the president and by the end of the meeting, have him thoroughly convinced that he's wanted Assange's extradition all along. They have agents trained in psychological operations and negotiation, and Trump is demonstrably an easy mark.

> Problem is, Trump says a lot of things that he doesn't mean. Or he forgets, it's a little unclear.

Unlikely, as it could play a big role in the whole ongoing public debate about the Trump-Russia connection.

> But the American intelligence community appears very interested in the guy and is known to have been working on extradition process in 2018.

Yep, but "Trump administration" seems to suggest that Trump is directing this, which seems comical to me.

I'm not clear why the U.S. president should be in the loop here anyway. Who makes the decision to prosecute in such cases?

Federal attorneys are appointed by the President, and can also be fired by the President at his discretion.

funny? probably not.

And as for no interest in extraditing him, he was arrested in response to a US extradition request.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks...

The US, and the MET police, have already confirmed that Assange has been re-arrested for an extradition warrant to the US.

I have found very little correlation between the things Trump says and the things he does, or even the things he says later.

I think in the USA is exactly where Trump wants Assange.

I'm reminded of Bush Sr keeping Panama's President Manuel Noriega in cold storage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Prosecution_in_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com